W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: 4.1 with more edits

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:21:08 -0600
To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <00da01c2d1e9$963eabf0$056fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>

It gives me a good idea of what I should be trying to do. What direction to
head.  But of course we don't know exactly what should be done for any given
piece of content.  

Were you thinking we should be more specific? 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 11:16 AM
To: 'WCAG List'
Subject: RE: 4.1 with more edits



> 2) Length and complexity of sentences (guides to clear writing
emphasize
> shorter sentences, with one idea per sentence, but they also recommend
> that writers vary sentence lengths within a document)
> 3) Coherence of paragraphs (too much change in topic or references
> between adjacent sentences makes text more difficult to understand;
> )

I think that the above criteria have lost clarity. Will people know what to
do?

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web


lisa@ubaccess.com <mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com>
www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/>
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Maurizio Boscarol
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:39 PM
To: Avi Arditti; WCAG List
Subject: Re: 4.1 with more edits



Avi:
> This incorporates suggestions that Maurizio posted to the list (thanks
> again, Maurizio!):

I'm happy you found it useful :)
I think you made a great work!

It's very important the introduction you made:

> This checkpoint lists ideas to help you review content for clarity.
Many
> of these ideas are promoted within the global movement for plain
> language. The items below are not presented as success criteria,
> however, nor as any attempt to impose a particular editorial style.
> Rather, they are elements to consider as you review writing. They
> reflect the idea that accessibility begins with understanding.

Good. Just two comments:


> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if you review the content
> with items such as these in mind:
>
> 1) Familiarity of terms and language structure
> 2) Length and complexity of sentences (guides to clear writing
emphasize
> shorter sentences, with one idea per sentence, but they also recommend
> that writers vary sentence lengths within a document)

This is to give rithm and good style to writing, as I know.

> 3) Coherence of paragraphs (too much change in topic or references
> between adjacent sentences makes text more difficult to understand;
> )

Should the lenght of paragraph be addressed by checkpoint 2, rather than
by the 'coherence' issue?
Something as:
(guides to clear writing emphasize
 shorter sentences, with one idea per sentence, but they also recommend
that writers vary sentence lengths within a document; anyway, paragraphs
that are excessively long also present a challenge)


(..)
> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if you review the content with
items
> such as these in mind:
>
> 1) Use of sentence structures that increase understanding (such as
> active voice in languages where this form is best used to convey
> information)
> 2) Length of noun phrases (strings of no more than three or four nouns
> are easiest to understand)
> 3) Clarity of reference of pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these
> refer back to something already said in the text but with potential
> ambiguity [example?])
> 4) Correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs (such as "and," "but,"
> "furthermore," "not only") to make explicit the relationship between
> phrases or parts of the text

very good the distinction between 3 an 4: it's more clear! :)

Just to be sure to understand the wcag-wg method: shuld we provide in a
separate document some example for this checkpoint? I think the
scientist and the monkey example should be included!... ;-)


Maurizio Boscarol
http://www.usabile.it
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 11:21:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT