- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:13:42 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
As a linguist I can sympathise with the idea that trying to fix a single simple language is doomed to failure. Parolone esperanton? I donīt think that essential feature of people means that Lisa is barking up the wrong tree (or is trying to do the wrong thing). A given communication in language relies on the conventions of the time, and these change. Nobody really seems to understand what "handsome is as handsome does" used to mean, although through strange history it still makes sense in the modern usage. At any time, there are ways of controlling language usage that can provide a simplification, especially if they are agreed conventions. That is a bit different to having entirely unambiguous language - but improvements are better than nothing. As it happens I talked to a large company that has automated tools for enforcing this in their documents, as well as another who put a high priority on meeting their rules for simple language and illustration in all documents. As a further example, many armies and training schools in particular have been doing this for years - because it is important to them that their message is communicated. There is always an argument that acessibility is incompatible with art. I donīt believe that is a sound argument. However, it is possible to make art that is not compatible with accessibility. It is possible to make art that is compatible with accessibility. It is possible to use the methods developed in art to enrich communication. This is not the same as arguing that the most important feature of the US Constitution is its artistic value. The most important feature, clearly, is the rules it lays out for a society to govern itself, and to the extent those are not able to be clearly interpreted and understood there are all sorts of corrective measures required, like an expensive collection of mostly old men to help interpret. For the rest, it is a question of our skill as writers, just as producing appropriate alt text is a question of our skill at interpreting graphic communication and translating the message to text. The more we can create simple rules, the easier that most things will become. We should not make the hard things impossible, but it is very helpfulto make the common things easy. Chaals On Thu, 16 May 2002, William Loughborough wrote: At 10:16 PM 5/15/2002 -0700, lisa Seeman wrote: >controlled use of language Who will control the controllers? If it is to be some version of the French Academe, they must be prepared for forms of ridicule/satire beyond anything presently available. Certainly. Thanks in advance for supplying it <grin/>
Received on Friday, 17 May 2002 10:13:45 UTC