- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
No, we are not saying anything about the content itself. We are only discussing the language used to express the content. If I go to the library and find a book full of complex language and a book full of plain language describing the same content I choose the one with the plain language. If I need to recommend something for other people to use I am more inclined to think about how well the language is written. Not in terms of artistic merit, in terms of technical use of language to convey information - sort of like the idea of building a bridge that can carry the vehicles that are going to cross it. The requirement has nothing to do with the complexity of the ideas or information being expressed. Which is why I proposed wording that doesn't mention those things. cheers Chaals -----Original Message----- From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:10 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: 4.1 I concur with Chaals. However, I have the same question as before. If we say this, are we saying that the content must be written to a level that everyone would understand. If a thesis, article, or scientific paper is published on the Internet so others might be able to use the information, is this then required to be easily understood by everyone? It seems constraining and possibly discrediting to the individual's work or studies. Or even discrediting to the business' research. If we go to the library and do research on a scientific research project we expect to see tough language and concepts. Wouldn't this also apply to the Internet? Thanks, Lee -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:17 AM To: Lisa Seeman Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: 4.1 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) -- 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 Monday, 3 June 2002 21:39:35 UTC