RE: 4.1 latest version

This is interesting perspective.

I am going to try to suggest a way to merge this into our checkpoint,

1, Cohesiveness
Where we  state that one idea per paragraph is preferred,  we could
recommend that at least all ideas/concepts in a paragraph are strongly
related.
Where we recommend  'Logic in the order and flow of information,"  we could
recommend that the logic and flow of ideas is reveled to the user (so that
when you switch from one topic to another , it is made clear - like a new
sub heading.. (this is related to checkpoint 1.3 and 1.4 on structure. -I do
not see the requirement of actually separating ideas into a structure)

these recommendations could be in accommodation explanatory text

2, Coherence

I am not sure what you meant hear- is it the conjunctions like promotes are
easy to resolve? For example when you say "He" - which he? The main subject
of the paragraph or the last male to have been refereed to.
for example:
"this is a story about David...... David has a dog called Tag. He has big
brown eyes."
compare with
 "this is a story about David..... David has a dog called Tag. Tag has big
brown eyes."

This is called Semantic ambiguity. Each word is not ambiguous, but other
knowledge sources are required to determine the meaning of a sentence. For
example, if we already know that David has blue eyes, then we know how to
resolve the sentence. However for a slow reader who may  forget minor
details of  what he read yesterday, the ambiguity remains. ( from a machine
perspective it is also hard to resolve .)

I think that this is a classic case of reviewing "Consequences of ambiguity
or abstraction" .
but it is a good discussion and certainly explanatory text  could make this
clearer.



All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web


lisa@ubaccess.com <mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com>
www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/>
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Maurizio Boscarol
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:59 AM
To: Avi Arditti; WCAG List
Subject: Re: 4.1 latest version



Sorry for my bad english: I hope I can explain what I mean...

I remember my studies on text-comprehension and there are some critical
issue on checkpoint 4.1.

The comprehensibility of a text rely on many factors. Some of them are
implemented in some automated readability index you can find on most
word processor. But you may notice that they are not really useful. Text
comprehension depends on text purpose, audience ability, and, finally,
on contextual information. What is 'Familiarity of terms and language
structure
'? It's very difficult to say in an objective manner.
Even the 'Length and complexity of sentencesof a phrase' is a
controversial question. In Italian language is considered bad writing to
use only short sentences. Better alternate short, medium and long
phrases and sentences as appropriated, but... when is it appropriated?

Some suggestions: text.comprehension are also influenced by two text
properties: coherence and cohesion.

Coherence: the fact that two contiguos phrases refer to the same
argument. A text is more difficult if the topic are changed often, or if
the subject is not clear and unique in contiguos phrases.

(i.e.: "I wrote a mail. The man was climbing me over."

Not so understandable, uh? What man? How does it relate to the fact I
wrote the mail?.. Lack of coherence.

Instead: "I wrote a long and articulated mail, trying to made it
understandable."

The relation is clear. This is an extreme example, but I
hope you see the point)

Coherence: the correct use of lexical connector: and, but, furthermore,
then... And the correct pronouns used to refer to an object. It's a
language issue, not a content one.

I realize that this suggestion are also difficult to express in
checkpoint, but I think it's important to try to take advantage from
some well consolidated research results, and so I ask for your opinion
about
them.

I don't know if they relate with accessibility of language, but in a
certain way I feel they should.

Hope this may help.

Maurizio Boscarol
http://www.usabile.it


>
> · 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 Thursday, 30 January 2003 09:26:36 UTC