RE: 4.1

The reason I proposed the wording I suggested is that I would like to avoid
making the claim "this is complex material anyway so doesn't have to be
written clearly" appear well-supported by the checkpoint. At the same time I
recognise that there will be documents where the ideas are complex. So I
don't think that this goes far enough towards a compromise that I would be
happy about.

I don't think that criterion 2 is a useful thing to have at any level -
presumably if it is a checkpoint the author will endeavour to meet it to the
extent they think appropriate anyway. I hope and believe that we can provide
some more detailed tests, I believe that these will differ according to
language (some of the suggestiong for english don't make any sense at all in
Yolngu Matha), and I hope and believe that working with teh Evaluation and
Repair Tools group we can demonstrate ways of automating many of the tests,
and of providing at least automatically supported repairs.

I think that in this case review by a member of the intended audience is
useful, but neither necessary (although I am not certain of that) nor
sufficient (I am pretty sure of that). It is not sufficient in part because
it makes it too easy to say "I didn't want people with disability X to use
this content anyway". The other problem with it is that there is going to be
a wide variation even among the intended audience - especially in the case of
"cognitive disabilities" which this checkpoint is primarly meant to cover.

I realise that I ahven't proposed anything very concrete. On the other hand
there have been a number of concrete proposals at least based on english, and
the proposal to require exlicit vowel marking (relevant at least to hebrew
and arabic) which I think are sensible candidates for success criteria, and
these should be discussed and accepted or rejected, and if accepted given
some proposed level. Clearly this is a difficult issue  and it seems we will
not resolve it in a week, but I think we are able to produce something pretty
good if we work on it.

Cheers

Chaals

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Jason White wrote:




  Here is a compromise proposal that makes the relationship between
  author and intended audience clearer, along the lines that Cynthia
  suggested in an earlier discussion of this topic.

  A possible amendment to this proposal would be to move what I have
  included as success criteria for level 2, up to level 1.


  4.1 Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate to the content and the
  intended audience.

  Success criteria

  Level 1:
  1. The intended audience of the content has been identified. This
  audience shall not be defined in a way that expressly or by
  implication is intended to exclude people with disabilities, or with
  any given type of disability, as a class.

  2. The content is written as clearly and simply as the author
     considers appropriate, bearing in mind its purpose and intended audience.

  Level 2:

  3. The content has been reviewed and is believed to be understandable
     by any person who is a member of the intended audience as defined
     by the author. [Is this too strong? How could the author be
     satisfied that anyone who meets the definition of the intended
     audience will necessarily understand the content? Can this be
     better expressed?]

  Level 3:

  4. Simpler versions of the content, or links to simpler informative or
     explanatory material, are provided.

  Note: user testing is an excellent means of evaluating whether level 2
  has been attained.


-- 
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 Saturday, 1 June 2002 20:54:11 UTC