- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:23:32 +1000 (EST)
- To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
- cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Lee Roberts wrote: > > I just read through the minutes for last week. Unfortunately, I didn't see > mention of any concensus regarding "plain language" only mention that we > need to determine if that checkpoint should be totally focused upon content > or the written words. Those attending last week's call were in broad agreement with the proposal put forward by Avi, Lisa et al., which used the expression "plain language", but as significant contributors to this discussion weren't on last week's teleconference, no actual consensus was formed. That is, the discussion was deferred. Also, note that what the checkpoint requires is defined not by the text of the checkpoint, but by the success criteria. Thus, it doesn't much matter what "plain language" or "easily understood language" or whatever the term is, means to the implementor so far as conformance to the checkpoint is concerned, as that is defined exclusively by the success criteria and not by the checkpoint text. Of course, we want our checkpoint text to be as descriptive and clear as possible, but the actual normative requirements are really set forth in the success criteria - if you have implemented the success criteria at a particular level, you have by definition satisfied the checkpoint.
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 00:23:42 UTC