Re: Comments on 4.1 (prior to telecon)

Very good suggestions -- thanks, John!

Avi

john_slatin wrote:
> 
> Under level 1:
> Current wording (in Avi's message):
> "* Terms that should be familiar to the intended audience are favored
> over terms that are less likely to be understood."
> Comment:
> [js] "favored" might be a difficult word for some to understand, especially
> in this passive construction.
> 
> Suggestion: "... Are used instead of..." or " are used more often than ..."
> A similar construction appears under the level 2 success criterion, and I'd
> make the same proposal there.
> 
> Current wording in Avi's message reads:
> "* Sentences are limited to a single idea.
> * Paragraphs are limited to a single idea."
> 
> Comment"
> [js] Saying that both sentences and paragraphs should be limited to a single
> idea appears to imply that every sentence should be a paragraph (and that
> all paragraphs are therefore one sentence long).  That could actually make
> text harder to understand.  I don't have a good proposal to offer at this
> point.
> 
> Under level 2, making the success criteria declarative (as per consensus and
> Gregg's note) will also make many of these items easier to read and
> understand.
> 
> Current wording in Avi's message reads:
> "* Would long paragraphs be easier to understand if rewritten as vertical
> lists?"
> 
> Comment:
> [js] I think this one is hard to test as written.  Perhaps it should
> indicate that long paragraphs containing lists or series in sentence form
> may be easier to understand when formatted as lists.  (Sorry, this is the
> best I can do right now!).
> 
> John
> 
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
> University of Texas at Austin
> 1 University Station G9600
> FAC 248C
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
>

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:58:54 UTC