RE: 4.1 Rev for TR release

Hi Charles,

Actually,  that note has been there for a long time - unchanged.  But
since the whole 4.1 is being posted as an open question, it probably
makes sense to pull that as text and perhaps change it into a readers
note that is less definite.  That way we may get more input on the
topic.   

It is so late in the game I don't know if we can still do this but how
about we change it to a reviewer's note that says 


Reviewer's Note: This checkpoint is very difficult and the group is
wrestling with several problems.     1) It is very difficult to
determine what makes writing clear and simple for all topics.   2) Some
content is derived from other sources and is copyrighted so it cannot be
altered.   3) Some materials or topics cannot be communicated accurately
in simple language. 4) sometimes the form is specific to the intent,
(poetry,  exposition )  5) 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.    It is difficult to find specific
objective criteria that could be applied across all types of content.
Any input on ways to address these issues is solicited. 


IF NO ONE HAS AN OBJECTION TO CHANGING THE TEXT TO A READERS NOTE FOR
THE TR RELEASE -- PLEASE POST A MEMO IMMEDIATELY.  

Otherwise I will try to push this through.   It will leave the questions
sound less final,  and might solicit more input to this very tough area.

Thanks.


Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:08 AM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 4.1 Rev for TR release
> 
> It seems to me that the note to "additional ideas" in this draft is in
> error, and in any case does not reflect the consensus of the group. I
would
> prefer that it was removed, and this section was marked "under
construction".
> The fact that this is under discussion is reflected by the reviewer's
note,
> and the additional note simply claims that it is not possible to have
success
> criteria (which would mean that there is no point in further
discussion of
> them).
> 
> Charles McCN
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> 
> >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).
> >

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 10:33:40 UTC