- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <kshea@apollo.fedworld.gov>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:48:03 -0400
- To: "1 W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Message-ID: <GEEALPIJNPCKPMIJDLOBMEJIDGAA.kshea@fedworld.gov>
Hi All, As per last telecom, April 19th, the issues, Simpler Language Alternative, and required tagging of some sort in metadata of: These 4 points that follow really need to be determined by ER (a la Jason), through RDF, CC/PP, Annotea (a la Chaals), etc. Not us. However, having said that I do feel that it is up to us to explain to authors that this functionality, through tagging, is coming. And, exactly what each of them mean to the human being (a la Lisa). 1: Summary (or other name) aimed at some yes-fuzzy particular level (i.e.; grade school) This will require action from some people willing to do a discovery in the education arena of designating levels of some sort) 2: Optimization Assertion (i.e.; this page is optimized for low vision, or, Assert: My content is optimized for college-level English speakers.) 3: Simpler Language Alternative made available through links (not necessarily reproducing entire content), and simple language summaries. 4: Perhaps an RDF classification conformance assertion requirement of some kind, through a combination of the above or stand alone. FIRST - Proposed new wording of Checkpoint # 3.3: 3.3 Use the clearest and simplest language that is appropriate to the content (of the site), taking into account its intended purpose. Note: Authors should exercise caution in ensuring that the intended audience is not defined too narrowly. (As it is now:3.3 Write clearly and simply. This checkpoint addresses the need to facilitate comprehension of the content by all readers, especially those with cognitive disabilities. It should not be interpreted as discouraging the expression of complex or technical ideas. However, authors should strive for clarity and simplicity in their writing. ) Proposed new wording of Checkpoint # 3.3, only if, the specific tagging determinations are made in the future: 3.3 Use the clearest and simplest language that is appropriate to the content (of the site), taking into account its intended purpose. Also, be sure to clearly identify that assertion of purpose (through the summary tag or "purpose" tag?) and audience optimized for (through the "assert" tag ?), through markup in metadata. Note: Authors should exercise caution in ensuring that the intended audience is not defined too narrowly. Note: "assert" tagging aids users when searching to receive more relevant content. SECOND - New Checkpoint # 3.4 (move existing 3.4 [multimedia] down 2 notches or make it 3.8): 3.4: For complex content (see summary checkpoint 3.5) provide, or link to, a simpler language alternative. (Which is comparable information on the same subject which is written at a more introductory or elementary level.) Define Simpler Language Alternative in Glossary. Proposed New Checkpoint # 3.4, only if, the specific tagging determinations are made in the future: 3.4: For complex content (see summary checkpoint 3.5) provide, or link to, and, identify in metadata markup, a simpler language alternative (through the "SimpLanAlt" tag?). (Which is comparable information on the same subject which is written at a more introductory or elementary level.) Note: Tagging aids users when searching to receive more relevant content. Define Simpler Language Alternative in Glossary. Modify checkpoint #3.5, only if, the specific tagging determinations are made in the future: Summarize complex information, (added) and identify that summary, in the metadata. Examples of complex information: * data tables, * concepts that are esoteric or difficult to understand, * content that involves several layers. Content is considered complex if the relationships between pieces of information are not easy to figure out. If the presentation of the information is intended to highlight trends or relationships between concepts, these should be explicitly stated in the summary. I believe that we really need to think about the library card catalog idea that Wendy brought up. There is no reason that our metadata should be less rich for the sake of shorter descriptions. Katie & Jason Katie Haritos-Shea 508 Coordinator / Webmaster, CIW NTIS/Fedworld Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road NTIS WebLab for Accessible Design Room # 2025 Springfield, Virginia, 22161 ph 703-605-6426 fax 703-605-6826 mailto:kshea@fedworld.gov mailto:kshea@ntis.fedworld.gov
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 15:43:03 UTC