W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2001

New checkpoint: identifying language

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:28:52 -0400
Message-Id: <a0510030cb791b671e602@[65.92.97.51]>
To: w3c-wai-ig@W3.org
>  I think "natural language" is the proper term for what we want.
>
>Here are three definitions

What you appear to mean is "'Natural language' is the term understood 
by computer geeks, and my biases toward that jargon term are backed 
up by three dictionary definitions. If real people in the real world 
don't understand the term, they can damn well look it up. *I* 
understand it and *I* looked it up. Why can't they?"

Our entire goal is to make a Guidelines document that everyone, even 
neophytes, can understand. Please don't draw us down the intractable 
rabbit hole of arguing that certain jargon terms are unavoidable. 
Certain of them are, like "captions" (not the same as subtitles) and 
"audio descriptions" (not the same as auditory descriptions or even 
play-by-play <http://www.joeclark.org/livead.html>).

"Natural language" is *avoidable* jargon. So let's avoid it.

Also, nice job appending three previous messages.


-- 
         Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
         Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques:
         <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 10:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT