4.1 newest version -- resubmitted

Apologies, but on the advice of counsel [;)] I withdraw my earlier
message and resubmit it with two slight changes: 

Level 1/Item 2 changes from "sensibility" to "reasonableness" (the first
runner-up.) Level 2/Item 10 changes from "desirability" to "improved
readability" and is rewritten to conform. 

(Thanks yet again, John Slatin!!)

---------------------------------

As we discussed in the last two meetings, I've made a few edits to the
previous version [1] to put this forward for the next draft of WCAG 2.0,
and any additional comment. 

Avi

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0217.html


---------------------------------

4.1 Write clearly

This checkpoint lists ideas to help you review content for clarity.
Plain language specialists around the world promote many of these ideas.
The following items are not presented as success criteria, however, or
as an attempt to impose 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:

1. familiarity of terms and language structure
2. reasonableness of length and complexity of sentences 
3. coherence of paragraphs (and sensibility in length)
4. clarity of headings and linked text when read out of context
5. accuracy and uniqueness of page titles
6. care in the use of all-capital letters where normal sentence case
might increase comprehension


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 languages where this form helps convey
information

2. length of noun phrases 
· strings of no more than three or four nouns are easiest to understand

3. clarity of reference with pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these
refer back to something already said in the text) 
· example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys. They eat
bananas."

4. correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs to make explicit the
relationship between phrases or parts of the text
· such as "and," "but," "furthermore," "not only"

5. complexity of verb tenses
· do the tenses used in a document seem overly complicated?

6. intelligibility of verb phrases

7. familiarity of idioms or slang

8. logic in the order and flow of information

9. consequences of ambiguity or abstraction

10. improved readability that vertical lists might offer in place of
long paragraphs of information

11. use of summaries to aid understanding.

12. thoroughness in the explanation of instructions or required actions

13. consistency in the use of names and labels

14. clarity where the document:
· addresses users
· explains choices and options
· labels options to get more information
· instructs users how to modify selections in critical functions (such
as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)

15. application 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

------

For definitions section:

Controlled languages use a restricted vocabulary taken from natural
language. The purpose is to make texts easier to understand and
translate. Standards generally limit words to a single meaning and
prescribed part of speech. Complex syntax is avoided.  Information about
controlled language applications is available on the World Wide Web.

Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 17:51:02 UTC