Re: 4.1 latest version

Avi Arditti writes:
 > 
 > Secondly, here is another version of 4.1, recast along the lines
 > suggested by Jason and Wendy et al. Lisa and I would like to get some
 > feedback to see if this form is more agreeable (or if we need to be more
 > explicit about making all the criteria testable.) 

In my opinion this is exactly what was suggested at the meeting. My
only comment is a pedantic point (see below).
 > 
 > You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if:
 > 
 > You reviewed the content and determined that the level of clarity is
 > appropriate, based on considerations such as these:
 > · Are sentence structures that increase understanding (such as active
 > voice in English and other languages) favored over those that reduce
 > understanding?
[...]

We need to decide whether the considerations listed under checkpoint
4.1 should be expressed as questions or statements. If they are to be
formulated as questions, then there is a problem in as much as it is
only implicit that the "right" or "desirable" answer to each of the
questions is in the affirmative. This difficulty could be remedied by
reformulating the preceding text thus:

You review the content and determine that questions such as the
following are to be answered in the affirmative, and hence that the
level of clarity is appropirate:


I realize this is more verbose but if the document isn't sufficiently
explicit on the point, the door will be left open for disputes over
whether the requirement is that an affirmative answer be given to each
of the questions in any review. Of course, if the "considerations"
listed under checkpoint 4.1 are written as statements, the
introductory prose can be simpler, as Avi's first-level proposal
demonstrates.

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 04:54:13 UTC