- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
- cc: WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Actually I like "easily understood" as much as I do plain language. The first is simple to translate, which is a helpful guide. I was not aware that we had consensus on the decision to assume that 4.1 covers presentation methods, structure of content etc. I think that is a bad idea for the reasons I outlined earlier - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0216 - mostly that the implementation and testing strategies are very different. cheers Chaals >At 08:13 AM 2002-08-29, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > >>Hmmmmm >> >>I think using a term like "plain language" to mean more than >>language (that is, including structure, formatting, illustration and >>all other things that can be used to make writing easier to >>understand). >> >>"plain language" may be a term of art in some field, but I would >>think we might chose a term that translates more directly from the >>words used to the meaning we intend. >
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 06:42:34 UTC