- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:51:29 +0100
- To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'Avi Arditti'" <aardit@voa.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
From: "Lisa Seeman" > In other words we need to say "provide clear content" - providing a > simplified version of the text is then providing content. Also using writing > is technique specific. Symbols or a supplementary video clip will also > fulfill the requirement Uhm.. I see what you mean, and it's true. But research in multimedia-comprehension field doesn't reach the same result that text-comprehension field. I had some experience in multimedia comprehension, and the double (or multiple) code can cause a lot of different conditions about clearity of the content and comprehension. It's a very tricky question... Perhaps we should distinguish the media-specific suggestions, after stating a general 'provide clear content'? It's all to do, anyway. > More generally however, I think the guild line has become too apologetic. we > have gone from reviewing all instances of non clear writing to a more a "do > what you like" approach. I think we need to make this more like a checkpoint > with clear instructions of what to do, but enabling a decision to be made to > ignore this instance. The more specific we are, at each level, the better. Right: but it isn't so easy as for the code! Text/content vary for purpose and audience, and there are some foreign-language specific issue. I don't know how to consider that in the checkpoint... Suggestions? What do you mean with 'enablling a decision to be made to ignore this instance'? I don't know if I understand, an example may help for me. Perhaps it's possible to turn our checkpoint to that approach, but I need to see it (sorry, my bad english... :-(( ). best, Maurizio Boscarol http://www.usabile.it
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 07:35:37 UTC