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: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:02:18 +0200 (MEST)
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <27550.1092985338@www15.gmx.net>

> Do we need to be defining words that are not meant to be different
> than the dictionary definition.

Not inevitably, I'd say. And we don't (or shouldn't) add additional meaning
to the 'definition' of 'complex' (so it stays the same lexical definition).

But by the way, it's somewhat frustrating that I already sent a definition
of 'complex' [1] when first critizing the current wording, then being asked
for a new definition -- and now experiencing that we question the need for a
definition at all.

> If we are going to define a threshold -- eg. When something
> becomes complex - then I can see it. But if we can't - don't - then
> I'm not sure what we are doing. If we just want to provide examples
> -- then it should be as an example. Yes? No?

I claim we cannot define a threshold since 'complex' is subjective, and
'complex content' then is subjective, too. There seem to be only /signs/ for
complexity, not evidences.

IMO, the only thing this discussion shows is that we need a definition of
'content' first, and then think about a definition or examples of complex
(don't want to use this word anymore ;) content. Or we simply include a note
that the guidelines help to reduce possibly irritating complexity.


Best regards,
 Jens.


[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/16518.1088602154@www12.gmx.net


-- 
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect (IxD)

http://meiert.com/
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 07:52:40 UTC

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