Re: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

Ben and Gregg,

please look carefully at:
Guideline 3: UNDERSTANDABLE. Make content and controls understandable 
to as many users as possible.
*	Core Checkpoints for Guideline 3
*	3.1 [CORE] Language of content can be programmatically 
determined.[was 1.6 partial]  
*	Extended Checkpoints for Guideline 3
*	3.2 [EXTENDED] The definition of abbreviations and acronyms can be 
unambiguously determined. [was 4.3] 
*	3.3 [EXTENDED] Content is written to be no more complex than is 
necessary and/or supplement with simpler forms of the content.   [was 
4.1 and 4.2] 
*	3.4 [EXTENDED] Layout and behavior of content is consistent or 
predictable, but not identical. [was 3.3 and 3.4] 

There is no mention of graphics, and one cannot imagine how anyone 
could assume there was.

at one stage there was discussion of a more media neutral format,  
"content is written" can hardly be said to describe illustration.

complex and simple are possibly not helpful terms in this context. Many 
people with learning difficulties can understand complex situations but 
perhaps only in a limited topic. Generalisation perhaps describes the 
problem more closely. eg I failed to generalise that 3.3 might include 
graphics.

I maintain that 3.3 still needs serious and considered re-working, 
hence my apology for absence.

thanks

Jonathan

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 09:10  pm, Ben Caldwell wrote:

> The reference to illustrations is item “g” of the first success 
> criterion under checkpoint 3.3.
>
>  
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-complexity
>
>  
>
> Note: There is a missing heading for required success criterion from 
> the June 24 draft under this checkpoint. The guidelines source 
> document has already been repaired.
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf OfJonathan Chetwynd
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:57 PM
> To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
> Cc: 'WAI GL'
> Subject: Re: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be 
> expressed in words
>
>  
>
> Gregg,
>
> where is illustation mentioned in Guideline 3*? where are you 
> referring to?
>
> It may be that if illustration were placed within Guideline 1,
> with an explanation of what makes for a good illustration in Guideline 
> 3,
> This might more closely follow the arrangement for text.
>
> Jonathan
>
> *http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
>