3.3 clear and simple Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes

[changed subject line to help finding it afterwards in the archive]

Well, I think we could do without all the qualifying statements in the
checkpoint text. But it seems that there is a desire to have some
qualification, so the trick is to select the most important bits and not
overcrowd the text.

Good point about the grammar lesson stuff, and if there are such things
online then it would be helpful to refer to them. One of the reasons for
learning grammar is to have a better range of techniques for writing. For
example, a good understanding of the differences between active and passive
voices is generally helpful in trying to write in one or the other, and in
translating between the two.

There are a number of differnt language skills that are needed to actually
implement 3.3. Good vocabulary can to a large extent be automated, or
strongly supported by automatic tools. Good grammar is also important in
understanding how to write things that are not ambiguous (as well as in
how to deliberately introduce ambiguity) and I expect a fair amount of this
to be in techniques.

I also expect translations of techniques for this to actually be different -
some features of language use are the same for a lot of languages, some are
different. And examples of language should be relevant and natural to the
language they are written in. (So all you translators out there, have a think
about this one <grin/>).

cheers

Charles

On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  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

Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 10:22:48 UTC