- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:57:25 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Charles, Do we need "as possible" as a qualifier, or should that be in the techniques as well? Oh, I liked the first two of your techniques, but think the one about pronouns belongs in a grammar lesson instead of "techniques" ... Anne At 09:13 AM 8/10/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >I agree that the checkpoint text is still a bit too complex to be understood >consistently. I would propose dropping the "appropriate" from the text for >now, and including it in the discussion material. > >In the sufficiency criteria we should be able to provide some ways of >measuring whether something meets the checkpoint. > >For example (this is a 2-minute exercise and I don't think these are good >enough, but they might give an idea what I mean): (techniques deleted) >etc > >cheers > >Charles > >(I haven't hung up my writing instructor's hat, or my translator's hat, but >they are a bit dusty...) > > >On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote: > > Jo, > > You were right to raise the issue on the telecon, but I don't > think the fix worked. The sentence is an important checkpoint, and if it > has to be "read right", then it hasn't been written "clearly and simply" > yet.... > > Is it necessary to say "as is possible" as well as "as is > appropriate" ? Can we omit "as is possible" and leave it "Write clearly and > simply as appropriate for the site." .... I think someone mentioned "as > possible" leaves a checkpoint open to abuse. Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 10:10:20 UTC