Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)

While I can certainly see the point about government websites (and
documents, anybody try to read the Tax Code lately?) I don't see how an
average reading level requirement can be applied to something like a Physics
Thesis.  While such a document 'might' be written at a 6th-8th grade reading
level, I doubt the author would get the degree.
It there a way to perhaps distinguish between things written for the web and
things that are "also published" on the web?
Marti

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)


> William,
>
> I'm not sure on this, but I think material needs to be published, or at
> least completed before it is copyrighted, so content that is being worked
> on to include in a page, is not yet copyrighted. And, it would be best if
> it were copyrighted at an average reading level. Content that presumes
> pre-knowledge isn't exempt from requiring an average reading level, and
> it's no more difficult to do than any other content. Poetry can be treated
> as a "quote", and sarcasm is either readable and understandable, or it
> fails, so it can be included under the content that must be understandable
> to be accessible.
>
> Anne
>
> At 07:00 PM 3/12/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> >At 05:12 PM 3/12/2001 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
> >>William,
> >>         A stab at it ....
> >>                 Unless the content is quoted or copyrighted, it should
> be readable by the
> >>"average" user as defined by the newspaper/news media (to cover
listening)
> >>... which is sorta about 6th - 8th grade level ...
> >
> >All material is copyrighted. :)  This rewrite proposal fails
> >immediately on those grounds.
> >
> >Also, you completely ignore the technical aspects required by
> >some writing -- you made no exception for works that require
> >specific pre-knowledge.
> >
> >Finally, you don't address how to handle works that are SPECIFICALLY
> >meant to be unclear, such as poetry or sarcasm.
> >
> >--Kynn
> >
> >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
> >Technical Developer Liaison
> >Reef North America
> >Tel +1 949-567-7006
> >________________________________________
> >ACCESSIBILITY IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
> >________________________________________
> >http://www.reef.com
> >
> >
> Anne Pemberton
> apembert@erols.com
>
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 07:53:31 UTC