- From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:44:43 -0500
- To: "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- CC: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>
First -- it looks like I will be about 45 minutes late for today's meeting. I have to leave the office. Secondly -- Maurizio raised some very good points that I had overlooked, and I appreciate Lisa's suggestions (plus Lee's, about moving "summaries" to level 2). So, upcoming shortly: a <latest> latest version of 4.1 to take into account the suggestions thus far. Avi Lisa Seeman wrote: > > 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 11:45:32 UTC