RE: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 3: checkpoint 3.3

 good points - 

let us first get consensus on

1, Creation of a CORE checkpoint that addresses understandability with a
focus on the user agent being able to do the work.

2, the removal of the "review" criteria from the extended checkpoint, in
view the criteria discussed below in the original email...

Then it may be appropriate to use this as the current wording and review
issues of each criteria.
 
Does that sound like a good plan?

All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Al Gilman
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:05 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 3:
checkpoint 3.3



At 02:21 AM 2003-08-03, lisa seeman wrote:
>This was a lot of work...
>
>before folks jump on any wording issues or the details, please, let us 
>get
>a consensus on the concept -is this the way to go? is the direction of
the 
>checkpoints a step forward? Also, please read the notes before
commenting

There is a lot here.  I myself don't get just one concept from it.  So I
don't know if Gregg and Jason can ask the question "is there consensus
on the concept presented here?"

There are several concepts that I see afoot in this discussion.  One key
concept is that clarification will be provided both by indirectly
associated lexical information and directly associated contextual
information, with a preference for the former where applicable.
Consider the following conceptual policy:

Provide lexical information offline (by a reference in the context to
dictionary-like resources) refined where needed by more specific
contextual information by inline markup or annotations.

Explanation:

We can draw a distinction between clarifying information that applies
broadly to many uses of a word, and information that is specific to how
a term is used in one instance of the word.  Terms associated with the
first class of clarifying information include "lexicon, dictionary,
glossary, idiom, idee_fixe, terminology, technical term, Term of Art,
jargon,..."  For this note I am going to use 'lexical' as a one-word
modifier for this class of information.  Lexical information deals with
terms and is reusable across
instances of the term.   Terms associated with the second class of
claryifying information include "syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
antecedent, anaphoric,..."  For this note I am going to use 'contextual'
as a one-word modifier for this latter class of information.  Contextual
information is not expressible in general as it varies so much from
instance to instance.

Notes:

1. Not all terms look like one word.  Compound terms such as "Term of
Art" may be documented in a glossary or other lexical resource.  This is
considered lexical information and not contextual.  The several tokens
in a compound term are used to identify one concept.

2. We don't need to get into definitions of syntactic vs. semantic
information to explain how to structure and express clarifying
information for the purposes of accessibility.  The category of lexical
information is pretty well defined in both academic linguistics and
practice in the Standards community. Everything else will have to be
handled by annotations of one form or another (whether markup or
metadata) we don't have to get deep into the theory of natural languages
and their processing to get our point across.


>
>Also remember to comment if you do like the rewrite (one can hope)
>
>
>on to the main....
>
>Firstly, I think part of 3.3 can be incorporated into a core checkpoint
>without unduly or overly  changing the content of the page...
>The purpose of a core checkpoint will be to ensure that user agents can

>provide assistance to the user, to summarize, simplify and aid
navigation.
>
>
>Specifically we could require in a core checkpoint:
>
>
>Provide assistance to enable the user to find and understand core 
>information.
>
>criteria:
>
>1, provide uniqueness of page titles
>
>2, provide headings and linked text that are unique and clear when read
>out of context
>
>3,  markup of  key information that the user most typically requires 
>with
>structural markup -(note: this is  similar to1.3 [CORE] however we are 
>adding a requirement  to _identify_  important content - and then 
>incorporate it into structural mark up )
>
>4,  when the content is more important then the writing style, clarify
>Syntactic and Semantic ambiguity, (but not word ambiguity). -see end
notes
>
>
>
>
>
>checkpoint 3.3 -E
>
>The "review" criteria was added as a compromise position, between 
>allowing
>us to state some clear writing requirements and making it practical. 
>However in view of us now being able to make this an extended
checkpoint, 
>we do not have to have the same concerns. If it is inappropriate for
this 
>content to use short sentence - well then the author can still claim 
>accessibility, but just not to this checkpoint. From the user
perspective, 
>this page is not accessible this audience if certain clear and certain 
>criteria are not met.
>
>
>
>checkpoint 3.3 - provide clear content
>
>success criteria
>    * All terms  used are available in a linked to, fully accessible
> accessible simple language lexicon, or supplementary lexicon of topic 
> specific Jargon
>    * A language structure is chosen to aid comprehension (such as
active 
> voice in languages where this form helps convey information)
>    * Strings of no more than three nouns are defined as a phrase in a 
> linked to lexicon
>    * Sentences without lists do not exceed 25 words.
>    * Do not use more then two conjunctions in a sentence or list item 
> (unless in  a sub list).
>    * Paragraphs do not contain more then 7 sentences
>    * Separate ideas are provided in a  separate paragraphs
>    * The key term or idea of each paragraph is easily identifiable 
> (techniques: through markup like em, or by "front loading")
>    * Inclusion of non-text content to symbolize or replace text for
key 
> pages
>    * Clarity of references are provided for  pronouns and anaphoric 
> expressions (these refer back to something already said in the text)
>        * example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys.
They 
> eat bananas."
>    * Conjunction forms and adverbs  are used correctly to make
explicit 
> the relationship between phrases or parts of the text such as "and," 
> "but," "furthermore," "not only"
>    * Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information (for
example 
> provide a summary, document map or flow diagram)
>    * Provide all steps in  required actions  or in the explanation of 
> instructions
>    * Provide consistency in the use of names and labels
>    * clarify 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)
>    * application of:
>        * 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
>
>
>Best practices:
>    * care in the use of all-capital letters where normal sentence case
> might increase comprehension
>    * providing support for conversion into symbolic languages
>    * testing with potential with cognitive disabilities  users for
ease 
> of accessibility
>    * use a well known lexicon.
>
>background and notes:
>
>Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information  - this provides

>a
>clear testable form that will encourage the author to use  logic and
order 
>in the flow of information, whilst providing a summary.
>
>Syntactic ambiguity occurs when there is more than one possible 
>syntactic parses for a grammatical sentence. For example, the sentence 
>Fasten the assembly with the lever. This may be either an instruction 
>to fasten the assembly using a lever, or an instruction to fasten the 
>assembly, which has a lever attached to it. With the prepositional 
>phrase with the lever can be attached to the verb or to the noun phrase

>object. However often a Syntactic ambiguity is caused by a word 
>ambiguity- in our example the word with is ambiguous. With  could mean 
>using or connected to. Semantic ambiguity Semantic ambiguity occurs 
>when other knowledge sources are required to determine the meaning of a

>sentence.  For example, the sentence Start the engine and keep it 
>running, the fact that it refers to the engine is not inferable from 
>the single clause keep it running. The ambiguity is caused by the 
>difficulty in resolving the pronoun. were the context can not decipher 
>the word
>
>
>All the best
>
>Lisa Seeman
>
><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>Visit us at the <http://www.ubaccess.com/>UB Access website
>
>UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 06:38:40 UTC