- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 05:46:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Yes, clearly we are working at the basics here, and there are people who will know better (and maybe even more who will claim they do). #18 is a success criterion for #13, which is not measurable although it does seem more useful to me for that. I suspect that we need to work out some concrete thigns that we can call success criteria, and then we can work out which are the important ones... By the way, I updated the page a bit to explain what it is about (and start to explain what it isn't...) cheers Charles On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Jo Miller wrote: Chaals, [snip] I'm very happy with #20. #2 may be overly restrictive by insisting that the topic sentence invariably be the first sentence (I'm not sure this is appropriate for all languages). However, I suppose it's probably good to have a firm, clear criterion like this for average and weak writers; the good writers who already know how to write clearly (all twelve of them) are going to ignore or bend any criteria that don't suit them anyway. In #18 we may be going overboard in our quest for measurability. Sentences can be short and clear while technically containing more than one relative clause, and I would rather see this advice in Techniques than in a normative document. #13 is more useful than #18, though someone might argue that #13 is not sufficiently measurable. >CMN wrote >Although this is a tricky area, and the four of us aren't the world's >greatest experst, we came up with some ideas, which I have written up in the >following page: http://www.w3.org/2001/11/334-wcag
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2001 05:46:42 UTC