- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:41:22 -0800
- To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Forwarding this to the list. very cool ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jo Miller" <jm@bendingline.com> To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il> Cc: <wendy@w3.org>; <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>; <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Checkpoint 3.3 > Hi Lisa, > > Thanks for your comments! > > Do you have any objection to moving this discussion to the mailing > list? If not, I would like to take it there so that the others can > participate if they choose. (Maybe you copied the list already and > the message just hasn't come through yet. I've noticed quite a delay > lately on listserv message distribution.) > > >All in all, I enjoyed reading this one, (really pointed out what I had > >missed.) > >comments in line > > > >> Broadly speaking, written content can be divided into two types: > > > >for text in images we had said "unless the main purposes of the text is non > >semantic" or something like that. That covers both exceptions - if it is a > >citation or if it is truly art. It also allows a web author to create an > >exception through redundancy > > > I'm sorry, I don't think I quite understand what you are saying here. > Could you clarify for me please? > > If you are describing art as a sub-category of "content that cannot > be edited," then I agree, pretty much. Both would be exempt from some > of the success criteria that apply to "editable" content. However, I > can see some reasons why we might want to mention "art" explicitly as > a sub-category, to avoid potential confusion: > > 1. Some art (poetry, let's say, or short stories) may be created > solely for the web and may not be published anywhere else. If the > poet/author is publishing her own material online, she might wonder > whether or not her work qualifies as "uneditable" (after all, the > poet could, in theory, rewrite her own poems). Charles's proposed > category for "artistic" content would eliminate this potential > confusion. > > 2. Requiring web authors to provide an apparatus to help all users > understand artistic content would be, in many cases, unreasonable, > and might deter people from publishing artistic material at all. I > believe Charles or Graham raised this point in an earlier discussion. > If I were required to explain all the unfamiliar terminology in a set > of Shakespeare sonnets, or provide an interpretive framework for > works of James Joyce or Gertrude Stein, I might simply elect not to > post that material. So we may want to consider how to limit the > burden that we place on people who want to publish artistic content > on the web. > > We want to make it clear that "uneditable" content is exempt from > some requirements of 3.3, but not from all of them. There are still > things that a web author can do to help readers understand uneditable > content. He should provide accurate, unique page titles, for > instance, and summaries. He can also provide appropriate structural > markup, glossaries of jargon, explanations of figurative language, > etc. > > The question is, how much supplemental material should a web author > be expected to provide for artistic content? (For instance, is it > even possible to nail down the meaning of figurative language in a > poem, which may be subtle, multi-layered, and open to several > different interpretations?) > > The "art" suggestion was Charles Munat's, though, and I'm sure he can > explain the reasoning behind it better than I. > > > > Questions: What is being summarized/outlined? A page? A set of pages? > >> A section of a page? Do we simply rely on the web author's common > >> sense and trust him not to over- or under-summarize? > > > >the upper limit could be every page can be summarized. For very simple > >pages, > >this can be done through a good title. (e.g. something.com's products) > >I can sometimes be at a relatively simple page, and it is something of an > >intellectual exercise to know what this page is actually about. > > > >Many sites have the same title for all pages. this is often less then a > summary of the page, but a marketing thing for search engines. > > Do you have any suggestions for capturing these scenarios in the > success criteria? If a title can sometimes suffice as a summary (and > I think this is a good point -- sometimes an accurate title is > plenty), is there a way to say so without giving people the idea that > a good title is always an adequate substitute for a summary or > outline? > > Perhaps we should break page titles out as a separate success > criterion. After all, good page titles ought to be a requirement for > all pages. Then we could further refine the success criterion that > requires summaries or outlines. For instance, we could say that pages > containing more than [x amount] of text should be accompanied by a > summary or outline, but for shorter pages it is not necessary. I > don't know what the limit would be. Five paragraphs? One screen-full > at 800 x 600 in default font size? > > > > >> "Use short paragraphs with no more than one main idea per paragraph." > >>"short" is a relative term (how short is short?). We are leaving > >> it to the author to decide what is appropriate for her content. > > > >We can say that for most content five sentences is the maximum. > >If your content is exceptional, such as...(I have no idea when this is > >truly impossible) were short paragraphs are not possible, then use as short > >as possible. > > If so, then this criterion would belong in "advice." > > > > > > >Can you give me an example of a paragraphed of more then five sentences, > >that > >could not be broken up? > > > I can. This paragraph is an example. It is short. In fact, it is only > two lines long. It makes only one point. Yet it does do in six > sentences. > > Remember, our advice to break up long sentences into shorter ones > will lead to more sentences per paragraph. Breaking such paragraphs > up at arbitrary points could simply create a staccato effect without > improving comprehensibility. > > Don't get me wrong -- I agree that "try to keep paragraphs to fewer > than five sentences" is excellent advice, especially for web writing. > I agree that it would improve the comprehensibility of the majority > of web pages. I just doubt that we can give it normative force > without potentially doing more harm than good. I would leave it in as > advice. > > Here is an additional consideration: I work with web authors and > content providers on a daily basis, and unfortunately I can foresee > an unwanted outcome of the "five sentences" criterion. Many authors > -- especially those who care only about technical compliance with > regulations -- will simply count off sentences, 1-2-3-4-5, and insert > an arbitrary paragraph break at that point. (Gian also works with > these folks and I think she might agree with my observations here.) > > This bean-counting approach will not result in coherent paragraphs > with one idea per paragraph. In fact, it will probably produce > paragraphs that are longer than they need to be. In most cases, FEWER > than five sentences per paragraph is ideal. Yet a sentence-counter > would simply see that his paragraph came in under the magic "5" > number, and would say, "Good enough! I pass!" He would not ask > himself, "Is this paragraph as concise as it could be? Does it make a > single point in a straightforward way? Is it coherent and logical? > Could it be shorter?" > > Therefore, I would far rather keep the focus on "short paragraphs, > one idea per paragraph" than turn authors into automatic > sentence-counters. I think this approach, though admittedly less > concrete, would produce better results. Still, I see nothing wrong > with telling people (informatively) that five sentences or fewer per > paragraph is usually a good length to aim for. > > > > > >> "Highlight your document's structure and its key points with > >> appropriate markup (e.g., headings and subheadings, emphases, lists) > >> to facilitate skimming and reading." > >> > >> Testable? I'd like to think that this criterion would pass the "eight > >> reasonable people" standard, but what does the rest of the group > >> think? There's certainly a subjective element here, and the question > >> of sufficiency arises. When has the author done enough to claim > >> conformance?. > >> > > > >The test I think we had marked out for it was if you just have the highlight > >content. Does the document flow? are any key points not represented? > > > >That is human testable. > > It is particularly testable if the document has gone through an > outlining stage. Then one could ask whether all main points in the > outline are emphasized through structural markup in the final written > document. > > > > >> People who > >> understand the "why" are far more likely to implement this advice > > > successfully. > >absolutely the why is very important. we will get there. > > > >> > >> "Provide definitions for any jargon or specialized terminology used > >> in your document." > >> > >> Questions: What are the acceptable ways of fulfilling this > >> requirement? Would a link to a glossary of specialized terms suffice? > >>> "Provide explanations of figurative, metaphorical, or idiomatic uses > >> of language (for example, 'haven't seen you in donkeys' years' or > >> 'the sight tore my heart out')." > >> > >> Useful? If it is true that there are cognitive disabilities that > >> prevent people from understanding figurative language, then yes. > > > >There are. I wrote a few email to the list on this. > > > >> Testable? Drawing the line would be a challenge here, and deciding > >> what needs glossing and what does not might require an expert. > >> Implementation is also a big enough pain in the ass that, practically > >> speaking, authors are likely to ignore this criterion. That decision > >> is not our problem, as long as it does not lead them to ignore 3.3 > >> entirely. "Idiom" would cover slang, as well, by the way. > > > >we had using a literal translation tool to a foreign language, and then > >doing > >a literal translation tool to go back to the original language. If the > >meaning is different then that is how some people will read > >it. > > I do not believe these tools are equal to that task yet. I have spent > many a giggly afternoon on the phone with friends, feeding sentences > into Alta Vista's Babel Fish and translating them back and forth > between English and German, English and Japanese, etc. The results > are invariably hilarious, whether the original sentence contained > idioms and metaphors or not. > > In several more years, translation tools may be able to handle the > syntactic differences between languages more smoothly. At present, > though, their tendency to translate word-by-word will produce an > overwhelming surplus of false positives if we try to use them for > this kind of testing. > > Not that it wouldn't be fun. > > > > > Substitutions for mine are eagerly solicited. > >go fly a kite (not you sir) > > > <grin> > Good one. > > > > > >> OK, these last two bring us to the success criteria that address word > >> choice--a thorny thicket if ever there was one.... > > > > > >I think that the more commonly used a word is, more easily it is understood. > > > > Not necessarily. Take, for example, the scariest sentence commonly > heard in the English language: > > "The plane will be in the air momentarily." > > Or the most disgusting: > > "Take this diet supplement and watch the pounds LITERALLY fall off." > > Ewww. Seriously, though, we cannot reliably predict which words users > will understand. Vocabulary is too quirky and unpredictable a thing > and, in my experience, seems to depend largely on factors other than > cognitive ability. > > Furthermore, we would probably be making too many implicit > assumptions about a site's audience, and we would certainly be > impinging on the author's right to choose what is "appropriate for > the content." Hence I think suggestions about word choice belong > under "advice." I see no useful way of making them normative. > > > > > >To make this easily testable we need a Thesaurus / dictionary that ranks > >word > >usage. > > > In every language? And is a web author expected to consult this > thesaurus for every word? > > Believe me, I would be thrilled beyond words if authors paused > between every sentence to consult a dictionary and ponder their word > choices. That would be my wet dream (a figurative use of language > that I would need to gloss, were I claiming conformance!). I would > also love it if we had peace in the middle east and fuel-efficient > SUVs. All of these things are equally likely to come to pass in my > lifetime. > > Keeping a dictionary on the desk and consulting it routinely seems to > be one of the habits people find most difficult to adopt, for some > reason. Perhaps it's something to do with misguided pride. Perhaps > it's just laziness. > > But even if web authors could be persuaded to adopt this habit, I > would still oppose, for reasons stated already, any success criterion > that limited the lexicon on which authors were permitted to draw. > > If we want to include use of such a dictionary (assuming one exists) > as a piece of advice, I'd say that's probably fine -- though I do > think that choosing the most accurate word available nearly always > produces better communication than choosing the commonest word > available. > > Let me clarify, at the risk of repeating myself: even if we could > come up with a testable way of drawing the line -- e.g., "Thou shalt > not use a word with a so-called difficulty rating of less than three" > -- I would not support such a restrictive and probably > counterproductive success criterion. Advice, yes, criterion, no. > Authors need to be free to choose the RIGHT word to express their > ideas. We cannot demand that they avoid the best word and substitute > a less accurate word, simply because the right word may be one that > is seldom used. Doing so would impoverish communication and do a > disservice to writer and reader alike. (Besides, the tremors caused > by Flaubert violently spinning in his grave might cause major natural > disasters in Normandy.) > > It seems to me that asking authors to provide a link to a dictionary > (either internal or external) is perhaps the best practical way to > ensure that readers have the resources they need to understand a > text, regardless of which words they already understand. One reason I > like this solution is that it offers greater choice and flexibility > to the users. > > By the way, the National Cancer Institute has an interesting > implementation of a dictionary for specialized terms. [1] Obviously > there are a lot of these special terms in Cancer Land. The reader can > choose to have an NCI web page displayed in "normal" mode or > "dictionary" mode. In dictionary mode, specialized terms are > highlighted and hyperlinked to definitions from a variety of sources. > I believe the system uses pop-up windows; it's been a long time since > I played with it. > > I'm sure this approach is not unique to NCI; I mention it simply > because it seems like a good solution for sites that have to use a > lot of jargon or unfamiliar terminology. Users who do not need the > dictionary can turn off the highlighting so that it doesn't distract > them, and users who do need the definitions have very easy access to > them. Each user gets to choose which presentation he prefers. > > Best, > jo > > [1] See http://plan.cancer.gov/scipri/genes.htm and click on "Define > terms on this page." > > > > >I had understood that we could consider something testable even if the tool > >was not yet created for it, but could be created and assume that Bobby or > >others will follow suit, even if there is some time laps. > > > > > >All the best > >Lisa >
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 02:49:55 UTC