Re: 4.1 latest version

Hi Lee -- sorry, "transparency" was a desperate stab at a word that
would convey the idea of understandability (another word considered) in
the notorious realm of phrasal verbs and idioms.

Wanted: a better way to urge users to consider the likelihood that all
sorts of people will know that "hook up the wires" means to connect
them. Or that "look him up" means "locate him in a directory." Or that
"brush up on" means to re-learn.

Re question 2 -- I agree about moving summaries to Level 2. Thanks!


Lee Roberts wrote:
> Great job Avi.  I have only two questions.
> 1.  Would you explain "transparency of verb phrases"?
> 2.  How many documents throughout the world would need to be re-written
> to accomplish the "summary" requirement for Minimum level?
> I know it would probably help with search engines, but there are some
> lengthy issues this would cause.  Although, I only have about 40 pages
> or so on my site, I'd hate to go back and write summaries to comply with
> Minimum level requirements.  I therefore imagine people would simply
> give up trying to achieve Minimum level requirements when they run
> across this.
> My suggestion is to move the "summary" requirement to Level 2.
> Lee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Avi Arditti
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: 4.1 latest version
> This recasts the November version* based on the much-appreciated
> suggestions, and the reviews of the 22Aug02 working draft.
> *(
> This checkpoint lists ideas to help you review content for clarity. Many
> of these ideas are promoted within the global movement for plain
> language. The items below are not presented as success criteria,
> however, nor as any attempt to impose a particular editorial style.
> Rather, they are elements to consider as you review writing. They
> reflect the idea that accessibility begins with understanding.
> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if you review the content
> with items such as these in mind:
> . Familiarity of terms and language structure
> . Length and complexity of sentences (shorter sentences, limited to one
> idea, are generally easier to understand) . Length and complexity of
> paragraphs (paragraphs limited to one idea are generally easier to
> understand)
> . Use of summaries to aid understanding.
> . Accuracy and uniqueness of page titles
> . Clarity of headings and linked text when read out of
> context.
> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if you review the
> content with items such as these in mind:
> 1) Use of sentence structures that increase understanding (such as
> active voice in English and other languages)
> 2) Length of noun phrases (strings of no more than three or four nouns
> are easiest to understand)
> 3) Complexity of verb tenses (simpler tenses are easier to understand)
> 4) Transparency of verb phrases
> 5) Familiarity of idioms or slang
> 6) Consequences of ambiguity or abstraction
> 7) Desirability of vertical lists in place of long paragraphs of
> information
> 8) Logic in the order and flow of information
> 9) Thoroughness in the explanation of instructions or required actions
> 10) Consistency in the use of names and labels
> 11) Clarity where the document:
>         - addresses users
>         - explains choices and options
>         - labels options to get more information
>         - instructs how to modify selections in critical functions (such
> as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)
> 12) Usage of:
>         - proper markup to highlight key information
>         - goal-action structure for menu prompts
>         - default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
>         - two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental
>           selections for critical functions
>         - calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate
> You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 3 if at least one of the following is
> true:
> 1. New material is tested with potential users for ease of accessibility
> 2. A controlled language is used 3. Support is given for conversion into
> symbolic languages

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 16:43:31 UTC