- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think the requirement belongs, but I agree that "as the author feels appropriate" weakens the requirement beyond any point of usefulness. It also makes self-fulfilling the claim (which I do not believe as consensus) that it is not possible to provide relatively objective success criteria (our 80% rule) for this checkpoint. How about "Use language that is easy to understand" as the text. This makes no comment on the complexity of the content being described, does not attempt to incorporate success criteria such as "what the author thinks is appropriate" into the checkpoint, and allows for success criteria to be provided as well as additional techniques to be offered. Cheers Charles On Fri, 31 May 2002, Lisa Seeman wrote: I would like to object to 4.1 (and 4.2) - write as clearly and simply as author feels appropriate for the content I would prefer that the checkpoint is omitted entirely. As it stands a site that is entirely inaccessible to people in terms of conforms to 4.1 can claim conformance to 4.1. This will serve to confuse people as to what sites are and are not accessible to them I also feel that "as appropriate for content " is offensive as most people are not thinking in terms of linguistic art, but in terms of abilities. In other words people will assume that WCAG thinks that there is content were people with severe cognitive disabilities could not understand. I prefer such a checkpoint should not be written Thanks Lisa -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 12:18:12 UTC