Who benefits from Guideline 3.1 (was disambiguation)

Hi, all.
 
Perhaps one reason we've been having so much difficulty coming to
consensus about Guideline 3.1 Levels 1 and 2, which are about
disambiguation and decoding, is that we haven't set out the benefits
very clearly.  The "Who benefits" section under 3.1 actually seems to
bury the *people* who might benefit under descriptions of actions/
qualities of content from which benefit mightbe derived.  I think we
need to write these beneffits in terms of people first, and make it
clear how content that conforms to these success criteria might address
specific problems that are related to specific disabilities.  This might
resolve some of our arguments.
 
For example, we might say something like the following:
 
- People with dyslexia benefit when help with pronunciation is provided.
People with dyslexia typically have difficulty with word recognition,
and research suggests that this difficulty is related to problems in
understanding the relationship between written symbols and sounds.
 
Obviously this is a clunky formulation and it probably isn't precise
enough either. Perhaps someone in the group who knows more about
dyslexia and other reading difficulties than I do could help us out
here?
 
John--------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com <http://mail.giantcompany.com/>