4.1 Rev for TR release

Below is the revision to 4.1 to per discussion at the telecon today to
bring the document into line with decisions made several weeks ago and
posted to the list.   This revision and an edit of the paragraph on
techniques to reflect that they are not normative will be the final
edits to the document before internal review by W3C on its way to TR.  

If there is a SERIOUS error please send a note to Chairs immediately.
Otherwise, this draft is out and we are on to the next one.   
(Remember - this is just an informational posting of our working doc so
external people can track our work and comment.)

Thanks

Gregg 


 


Here is the revised draft of 4.1


 

Checkpoint 4.1 Write as clearly and simply as is [appropriate /
possible] for the purpose of the content.

Reviewer's Note: This item is under discussion. There is consensus for
the existence of the checkpoint but not for the form of the success
criteria.  We do not therefore have something for the draft at this
time.  There is a list below of items that are being explored for
inclusion either as success criteria or as Advisory Recommendations.
We are also compliling a longer list (approx 50 items) of different
ideas that relate to this checkpoint.  Comments, suggestions and
contributions to the discusssion and work on this topic are welcome.
Refer to the issues list for more information.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if:

*        (Still under construction). 

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if:

*        (Still under construction). 

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 3 if:

*        (Still under construction). 

The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this
particular dimension:

Note: It is very difficult to determine what makes writing clear and
simple for all topics. Some content is derived from other sources and is
copyrighted so it cannot be altered. Some materials or topics cannot be
communicated accurately in simple language. Also, since some people
cannot understand the content no matter how simply it is written, it is
not possible to make any content accessible to everyone. Specific
objective criteria that could be applied across all types of content are
therefore not possible. Advisory recommendations are however listed
below to provide guidance in this area. See also the techniques
documents for the different technologies.

*        (Still under construction). 

PARTIAL LIST OF ITEMS BEING EXPLORED FOR INCLUSION AS SUCCESS CRITERIA
OR ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS.

1.      Content under site control is written as clearly and simply as
the author feels [appropriate / possible] for the purpose of the
content. 

2.      A statement is provided on the site which asserts that those
responsible for the site have reviewed the materials on the site and the
content under their control is written as clearly and simply as they
feel is [appropriate / possible] for the purpose of the content. 

3.      Summaries and/or simpler forms are provided for key pages or
sections of the site.

4.      Provide an outline or a summary for your document. 

5.      Break up long paragraphs into shorter ones, with one idea per
paragraph. 

6.      Break up long sentences into shorter ones. 

7.      Provide accurate unique page titles. 

8.      Ensure that headings and link text are unique and that they make
sense when read out of context. 

9.      Provide definitions for any jargon or specialized terminology
used in your document. 

10. Provide explanations of figurative, metaphorical, or idiomatic uses
of language (for example, 'haven't seen you in a coons age' or 'the
sight tore my heart out'). 

11. Language should be used that your intended audience ought to be
familiar with. 

12. When introducing new concepts or terms, they should be defined or
annotated in language that the audience is expected to be familiar with,
or definitions or explanations should be linked to that might be easier
to understand. 

Reviewer's Note: The list above is a partial list of ideas. We're still
working on a longer list of ideas to be used in furthering the
development of this checkpoint..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>
mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, < <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu <
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>