- From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:28:39 -0400
- To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20041029082309.022700c8@host.igs.net>
Henk, I really like what you have done here. I think your methodology for choosing the terms for inclusion is valid. The group-polling takes what would otherwise be purely subjective choices and adds a bit of weight to the decisions. I think the harder task will be to answer your second question. I am sure that some of the many definitions already out there could be used little modification, but there are some that cry-out for annotation (or rewriting altogether). I have to say that, where you have included them, I like your own definitions. I think you are on the right track with them. The trick will be to ensure that any plain-language (simplified) definitions we come up with still bear enough resemblance to the original (complex) ones that people don't think we are defining two different concepts. Regards, Chuck Letourneau At 04/10/29 04:19, Henk Snetselaar wrote: >Hi all, > >Here are the first 'Beginners Lexicon' results. >Questions: >- What about the way of working, is this leading us somewhere? >- What about the descriptions, should we take existing descriptions >or compose each description from scratch?
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 13:29:07 UTC