Re: 4.1 newest version -- resubmitted

From: "Lisa Seeman"
> In other words we need to say "provide clear content" - providing a
> simplified version of the text is then providing content. Also using
writing
> is technique specific. Symbols or a supplementary video clip will also
> fulfill the requirement

Uhm.. I see what you mean, and it's true. But research in
multimedia-comprehension field doesn't reach the same result that
text-comprehension field. I had some experience in multimedia
comprehension, and the double (or multiple) code can cause a lot of
different conditions about clearity of the content and comprehension.
It's a very tricky question... Perhaps we should distinguish the
media-specific suggestions, after stating a general 'provide clear
content'?

It's all to do, anyway.


> More generally however, I think the guild line has become too
apologetic. we
> have gone from reviewing all instances of non clear writing to  a more
a "do
> what you like" approach. I think we need to make this more like a
checkpoint
> with clear instructions of what to do, but enabling a decision to be
made to
> ignore this instance. The more specific we are, at each level, the
better.

Right: but it isn't so easy as for the code!
Text/content vary for purpose and audience, and there are some
foreign-language specific issue. I don't know how to consider that in
the checkpoint... Suggestions?
What do you mean with 'enablling a decision to be made to ignore this
instance'? I don't know if I understand, an example may help for me.
Perhaps it's possible to turn our checkpoint to that approach, but I
need to see it (sorry, my bad english... :-((  ).

best,

Maurizio Boscarol
http://www.usabile.it