- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:43:48 -0700
- To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Cc: "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Let me explain why I liked my proposal. One of the problems we came across in setting 4.1 criteria was how widely applicable each criteria is, especially when we have made them testable, which removes vaigness such as "aviode" or "reduce". For example: Can we require short words on a disertation? can we require "providing summaries" on an ecommerce site or download page. The result was that we alowed a title to suffice as a summary. But a clear title should be a separate item as it is so often an inadequate Summary. The result is we were left with very few and inadequate level one criteria for 4.1. - a good title and that was about it. By requiring a percentage of items at different levels (what ever percentage we find works), we can create criteria more specific and testable - and have them included in some way at level one. We could word the requirement that the web author should select the X% of items that they consider the most appropriate and helpful for their content (not just the easiest) It is a practical suggestion, biased on the real concerns of addressing 4.1 success criteria level. Not a theoretical suggestion. This is a way of allowing more items to be included in level 1, and Peaple can choose items that are relevant to their site. All the best, Lisa Seeman UnBounded Access Widen the World Web http://www.UBaccess.com -----Original Message----- From: john_slatin [mailto:john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:32 AM To: 'Lisa Seeman'; john_slatin Subject: RE: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal Thanks, Lisa. I apologize for not having provided a rationale. Here goes: All of the items that Avi listed can help authors make their work more understandable. But I don't think they're all equal, so I worry that merely counting them won't be as effective as carefull choosing the ones that are most likely to have impact for a particular document. So it might be useful to assign certain items in the list to the various conformance levels. For example, providing summaries and using bulleted lists instead of long, comma-separated series might be well placed at minimum level, while using grammar and syntax that support translatability might be a level 3 item. 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 9:07 pm To: 'john_slatin' Subject: RE: Proposed 4.1 wording for discussion and new proposal >but it seems too mechanical a solution to be truly effective. What does that mean in practice? Why all the best, Lisa 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 13:43:51 UTC