W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: 4.1 and 4.1 revised

From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:01:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3DBECD0E.55A54629@voa.gov>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
CC: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, leeroberts@roserockdesign.com, Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hi Wendy and Andi,

Thanks both of you for the excellent feedback and suggestions. I will
use these ideas (and any others posted by the group) to clarify and
fine-tune the draft, and will resubmit it first to Lisa. 

I will look for time to work on it this weekend.


Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> Hello all,
> I took an action at last week's meeting to get an email discussion started
> amongst the 4 of us.
> What I gathered from last week's meeting is that we ought to try wrapping
> the proposed success criteria with a statement in the form, "content has
> been reviewed and we believe it to have x characteristics."
> Throughout the guidelines, the success criteria that begin, "the content
> has been reviewed..." are level 2.  Perhaps for this checkpoint, we would
> have success criteria at levels 1 and 2 that begin, "the content has been
> reviewed..."
> For example, taking the list from Avi's proposal (with modifications based
> on last week's discussion):
> You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if:
> 1. The content has been reviewed, taking into account the following list of
> ideas and is considered to be as clear and simple as is [appropriate /
> possible] for the purpose of the content:
>     1. Page titles are accurate and unique.
>     2. The  words and language structure are likely to be familiar to
> people within the intended audience.
>     3. Terms that should be familiar to the intended audience are favored
> over terms that are less likely to be understood.
>     4. Sentences are  limited to a single idea.
>     5. Paragraphs are limited to a single idea.
>     6. Summaries are provided when these would aid understanding.
>     7. Headings and linked text are unique and make sense when read out of
> context.
> I deleted several items from the list because I feel they are covered
> elsewhere or are likely to be satisfied through 3rd party services, e.g.
> annotation, summarization, description, etc.   These services are similar
> to what Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic or school teachers provide
> today.  For example, News-2-you [1] provides weekly news in symbol form for
> people with communication/cognitive disabilities.
> [1] http://www.news-2-you.com/ (requires flash to get past first page)
> I think the RDF techniques that Lisa is promoting would be most useful if
> used by the 3rd parties to annotate (either through text or illustrations
> or multimedia), summarize, or describe primary content.  For example, refer
> to the W3C annotation work [2].  A 3rd party could annotate a page with a
> symbol language.  When the user loads that page in the WWAAC browser [3]
> they could see the symbols instead of the text.
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/
> [3] - the work package that
> describes the tools they will develop.
> Resource discovery is another thing that I feel is a technique (most likely
> a semantic web technique).  The part the author provides is descriptive
> metadata (for resource discovery not for summarization or translation) and
> I do feel that we ought to require that in some way, but I don't think this
> is the checkpoint it fits under.
> The criteria related to annotations and abbreviations is already covered in
> 2 other checkpoints.  Refer to my response at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0104.html
> Thoughts?
> --wendy
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> /--
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 13:02:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:09 UTC