- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:35:12 -0800
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 06:19 PM 3/13/2001 , Al Gilman wrote: >The difficulty with incorporating reading-level checking in what we are doing >is that reading-level checking makes sense as a _process requirement_, a >required activity in the content development process; but there is no single >tool or threshold that makes sense as a _product requirement_ for all web >content. Yes. Well stated. I agree. I have always told people that web accessibility is a mindset -- a methodology, a way of solving problems, a view of the web -- not a series of binary checkpoints. >The product requirements for reading level should indeed float, as people have >pointed out. How to get help from the IRS in preparing your tax return is a >topic that has to be explained in very accessible language. A doctoral >dissertation in Physics should still be written as simply as possible, but it >may be appropriate to assume a lot more knowledge among the readers than one >can get away with in general writing. Both of these will be more >successful in >clear writing if they use reading-level measures as a checking tool. At risk of beating a drum, I really need to emphasize that the above description -- which has been used by a number of people to illustrate the problem -- is incomplete because it is really only along one axis. There are -numerous- reasons to try to communicate, and applying a fog index (e.g.) to -every- form of written or verbal communication is improper. E.g., editorials, advertisements, parodies, humor, fiction, and a vast number of other content types are even -harder- to apply such a standard to. --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
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 10:42:11 UTC