- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:32:07 -0500
- To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Avi Arditti'" <aardit@voanews.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se
I too like the proposal that Avi has put forward for 4.1, especially because it offers such a lucid explanation of plain language and such useful advice about how to accomplish it (the list of elements). List points out that the list doesn't quite fit the way we've worked with other checkpoints, but I think there's a relatively simple solution for that: the list of elements can go under the "Advice" heading we've used elsewhere in 2.0. I disagree with Lisa's suggestion about linking success at the various levels to a percentage of the elements listed. Talking in such terms may be heuristically useful, but it seems too mechanical a solution to be truly effective. John John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C, Mail code G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.ital.utexas.edu -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:09 pm To: 'Avi Arditti'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se; 'Lisa Seeman' Subject: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal I very much liked the simplification of Checkpoint 4.1 to "Use plain language" I think it implies all the considerations that we had in wording this checkpoint. If using simpler word has changed the meaning of the sentence then you are not using plain language, but rubbish (be it simple rubbish). Plain language implies some ((un)common since. In terms of the success criteria, the list is still incomplete as we are aweighting the complete list from Ben, But its layout is interesting. It does not follow the formulary for success criteria that we have been working on at all. But does follow the spirit of the success criteria so eloquently described by Jason - who I will now attempt to misquote.... Level one implies they you have attempted to address these issues, some what. Level two is were you have taken it to a further level, and level three is were you have done everything you could do. (sorry Jason, I just do not have your eloquence) Other then that I have (of course) problems with the wording of the both the list and the success criteria. But the approach is an interesting one. I would make the levels at (this is the new proposal bit) : success criteria level one: Adopting consistently (Implementing ) a quarter of the elements listed below, success criteria level two: Implementing half elements listed below, success criteria level three : Implementing all the elements listed bellow ( the whole thing) OR a format/extra information that allowed automatic and correct conversion to plain language (yup - ILS). Then we need only include in the list testable criteria, but with no concern for appropriateness. The beauty of this approach is that on every page you can find 1/4 plain language ideas that work and are suitable, even if any one by themselves can not be applied across the board. If this is not the case, then 1/4 is too high and we make lower - until we get something workable. Flexible, robust and enduring... All the best, Lisa Seeman UnBounded Access Widen the World Web http://www.UBaccess.com -----Original Message----- From: Avi Arditti [mailto:aardit@voanews.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:28 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Cc: Bengt.Farre@androtech.se; Lisa Seeman Subject: Re: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion Greetings to all, I would like to propose some ideas for checkpoint 4.1 in an effort to revive and narrow the discussion. What I have written incorporates ideas that Bengt, Lisa (by phone) and I discussed at the Linz f2f. It also incorporates some wording from the current draft of 2.0. And it attempts to deal with concerns raised during telecons. I await comments and suggestions. As we say in American slang, bring it on! (But please be judicious with the trash talk.) Avi Arditti Senior News Editor - Web Editor Voice of America, Special English Branch Washington, DC 20237 USA (202) 619-0927 | (202) 619-2543 fax aardit@voa.gov | www.voaspecialenglish.com | www.plainlanguage.gov
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 10:32:15 UTC