W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: [wcag2] Definition of 'complex content'

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:47:17 +0200 (MEST)
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <29468.1092934037@www24.gmx.net>

> > > Yvette: I also think we should include difficult language
> > > as an example of complex content.
> > 
> > Jens: Disagreed. For example, take
> > 
> > "In interspecies transmissions of transmissible spongiform 
> > encephalopathies, the agent has to overcome a species barrier 
> > that is largely influenced by the rate of homology between 
> > the prion proteins (PrPC) two involved species.
> > [...]" [1]
> > 
> > I claim that this excerpt consists of 'difficult language' 
> > (for 99% of the population), but it is /not/ complex, not per 
> > se. So I recommend not to include it in the definition.
>
> [...] Personally, I guestimate using difficult words is the
> number 1 reason why people find a website complex. Therefore,
> I would really like to include is as an example of complex
> content.

Well, there's only /one/ paragraph on a page, represented by the example
above, and you would really say it's /complex/? I agree that something
strange or weird can be hard to understand, but strange, foreign, weird,
this all does not imply that it's complex...!?

I find this very interesting, since it shows how complex 'complex' really is
;) And if you all agree that (overdoing) one single word can be complex,
than I'm beaten -- but otherwise, I would /not/ associate complexity with
the (kind of) language being used.

(Hope I made myself clear ;)


Kind regards,
 Jens.


-- 
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect (IxD)

http://meiert.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:47:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC