Checkpoint 3.3 Research

I hope this information helps everyone.  It doesn't matter what the content
is the content must follow certain requirements.  Those requirements were
included in my previous post
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0282.html.  In all
the research I found there were two things that were constant.  The first is
mentioned in the above linked message.  The second is the fact that the user
and the provider must come to an agreement that the content must present
itself in a credible manner.

Succeeding on the first part requires the content to be provided in an
easily read and understood format.  Nowhere does it indicate that the
content must be provided in a manner that takes into consideration the
lowest common denomiator or reader.  The second successfully shows that the
user or reader agrees that the information is written on their level and the
content is credible.  How can the content provider meet up to the
expectations of unrealized users or readers?  Simply, provide links to
supporting or background information for those that are not totally up to
speed.

By meeting both of these requirements the level of accessibility is
increased and enhanced.  Even those that are accustomed to the content
expect to find resources at the end and segments notated that are
reflections of other's work.  The only content that can be assured of
uniqueness are literary works.  Technical and informative information will
almost always have referenced material.

Below is a listing of resources I found that provides information that will
help with this issue.
Scannability
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/wftw3.html
Writing to be read
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/wftw5.html
Terms to avoid
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/wftw7.html
Web Facts
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/wftw9.html
Balanced Pages
http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/pages/balanced_pages.html
Writing for the Web
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~webteach/articles/text.html
"The Economics of Electronic Publishing: Some Preliminary Thoughts"  (note:
this resource points out the difference of reader types)
http://arl.cni.org/symp3/day.html
An excellent Thesis
http://www.dnai.com/~mackey/thesis/thesis.html
"Edit Web Pages for Skim Readers"
http://www.webpagecontent.com/arc_archive/113/5/
"From Plain English to Global English"
http://www.webpagecontent.com/corp_archive/92/6/
Heck, just read her entire site.

"Writing for the Web"
http://www.htmlsource.f2s.com/promotion/writingfortheweb.html


The really big one:
Editorial Review of Web Pages
This link specifically states that the style of preference is the Chicago
Style
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/wftw8.html
Editorial Style
http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/pages/editorial_style.html


Printed Books for Reference
E-What? A Guide to the Quirks of New Media Style and Usage (EEI Press)
http://www.eeicommunications.com/press/ewhat2.html  (Important read on this
page - save money)

Guide to Grammar and Style
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/


Sincerely,
Lee Roberts
President/CEO
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
Building web sites accessible by EVERYONE
http://www.roserockdesign.com