RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

Jonathan,
 
I think the problem with the phrase "content is written" has been
resolved: Gregg and I had an exchange about it last week some time, and
I believe we agreed that this should be changed to read:
 
"Content is no more complex than necessary."  
 
 
I hope that helps.
 
John
 
 

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:58 am
To: Ben Caldwell
Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; 'WAI GL'
Subject: Re: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be
expressed in words


Ben and Gregg, 

please look carefully at: 
Guideline 3: UNDERSTANDABLE. Make content and controls understandable to
as many users as possible. 
* Core Checkpoints for Guideline 3 
* 3.1 [CORE] Language of content can be programmatically determined.[was
1.6 partial]   
* Extended Checkpoints for Guideline 3 
* 3.2 [EXTENDED] The definition of abbreviations and acronyms can be
unambiguously determined. [was 4.3]  
* 3.3 [EXTENDED] Content is written to be no more complex than is
necessary and/or supplement with simpler forms of the content.   [was
4.1 and 4.2]  
* 3.4 [EXTENDED] Layout and behavior of content is consistent or
predictable, but not identical. [was 3.3 and 3.4]  

There is no mention of graphics, and one cannot imagine how anyone could
assume there was. 

at one stage there was discussion of a more media neutral format,
"content is written" can hardly be said to describe illustration. 

complex and simple are possibly not helpful terms in this context. Many
people with learning difficulties can understand complex situations but
perhaps only in a limited topic. Generalisation perhaps describes the
problem more closely. eg I failed to generalise that 3.3 might include
graphics. 

I maintain that 3.3 still needs serious and considered re-working, hence
my apology for absence. 

thanks 

Jonathan 

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 09:10 pm, Ben Caldwell wrote: 


	The reference to illustrations is item "g" of the first success
criterion under checkpoint 3.3. 

	

	http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-complexity 

	

	Note: There is a missing heading for required success criterion
from the June 24 draft under this checkpoint. The guidelines source
document has already been repaired. 

	

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf OfJonathan Chetwynd 
	Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:57 PM 
	To: gv@trace.wisc.edu 
	Cc: 'WAI GL' 
	Subject: Re: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be
expressed in words 

	

	Gregg, 

	where is illustation mentioned in Guideline 3*? where are you
referring to? 

	It may be that if illustration were placed within Guideline 1, 
	with an explanation of what makes for a good illustration in
Guideline 3, 
	This might more closely follow the arrangement for text. 

	Jonathan 

	*http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/