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

RE: [wcag2] Definition of 'complex content'

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:55:31 -0500
To: "'Jens Meiert'" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000064982726@spamarrest.com>

Hi Jens,

The question was not to you -- but to the group.  When we get into a
quagmire one of the things that we need to examine (and something we need to
examine of all things at all times) is whether we need to be doing this here
- and if so why.  What are we trying to accomplish.  It often helps to focus
us.   

And yes - making guidelines is very frustrating.  Especially when you see
things sometimes go in circles before they find their way out.  I feel your
pain.  And thank you for your contributions and for hanging in there and
working on this. 

We are busily working on a definition for "content" and how to handle
"complex" and other important but elusive words.    Not easy.  Thanks for
the help.   

Wish us all luck on speedy inspiration. 

 
Gregg

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Meiert [mailto:jens.meiert@erde3.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:02 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: [wcag2] Definition of 'complex content'

> 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 12:55:33 UTC

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