Re: B.3.1 - Simple and straightforward language

I would put the explanation into techniques. Which is basically this:

This checkpoint does not require a website to avoid complex content. It
requires that the language (and other aids to comprehension - images,
multimedia examples, etc) be as simple as possible to understand. For
example, in most contexts, 'eschew sesquipedalianism' is a much more
complex way of saying 'don't use big words when you can use simple ones'.

Examples where the use of the simplest words may not be appropriate
include poetry, and technical literature which uses specialised terms.
the practise of providing a gloss (short explanation of meaning), or ruby
for unfamiliar words is only about one two thousand years older than the
web, and is still a valuable technique. the HTML element RUBY, or a link
to a glossary, are two ways of achieveing this.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  B.3.1 currently says:
  Use the simplest and most straightforward language that is possible for the
  content of your site. [Priority 2] 
  After much discussion, the consensus seems to be that this is a P1 item
  that needs an explanation.  However, I am having trouble providing an
  explanation that doesn't sound like an author can write this one off.
  help!  here's what I have so far:
  Use language that is as simple as possible and appropriate for the content
  of your site. [Priority 1]  While it is difficult to define "simple" in a
  way that makes this checkpoint easily demonstrable, ....

--Charles McCathieNevile  
phone: +1 617 258 0992
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Thursday, 18 February 1999 23:22:52 UTC