- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:01:55 -0800
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 07:22 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>quite useful to those with limited reading skills if the language is kept
>simple and sentences short.
Of course, this all presumes that the "summary" is written "simpler" than
what it summarizes. I find this counter-intuitive. If one were able to
simplify *and* summarize in a smaller space, why wouldn't the "summary" be
the main thing and have pointers to the hard-to-comprehend main text
instead of the other way 'round?
In the guidelines effort we are faced with the identical problem: expanding
the terse/precise/technical stuff with elaborated
descriptions/definitions/elucidations. If it worked to have a summary
clarify things, we needn't have the expansion?
I am all in favor of summaries (where appropriate?) and in fact think they
are an important part of the indexing (they are the "what" and "why") and
will play a major part in making the Semantic Web usable. Such materials
are what they mean by "Resource Description" the first two items in the RDF
acronym!
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 09:59:47 UTC