W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: Checkpoint 3.2 (was 3.4) - Alternatives to "consistent"

From: Yvette P. Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:36:58 +0100
To: "'Gian Sampson-Wild (PurpleTop)'" <gian@purpletop.com.au>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1AwMdL-0001qN-Od@smtp2.home.nl>

> Perhaps we could have a discussion (or a vote) on which of 
> the following people believe are least subjective:

Sorry to burst your bubble but to me, 'consistent' is by far the best
option. Why didn't you put that as an option? I will list my objections to
each below, using 'consistent layouts' as an example of the use of the word.

> * Inherent

I would associate this with plain HTML without any presentational markup.
The 1993 look of the web if you know what I mean.

> * Intuitive

Intuitive for whom? the author? the visitor?

> * Reliable
> * Dependable
> * Steady

Reliable, dependable and steady web content to me has technical
associations. A website where every page has a totally different moronic
layout can still be reliable in my LGF [1]. It would apply to the technical
aspects of this checkpoint but not the presentational ones.

> * Constant
> * Uniform

Uniform and constant sound more restrictive than necessary. If I have a
website with a different color scheme for each section, that would be
consistent but in my LGF [1] it would not be uniform.

> * Regular

Sounds like 'ordinary'. We don't want to encourage extraordinary websites.

> * Coherent

My #2, just behind "consistent". Between the two, I think more people would
understand consistent.

Yvette Hoitink
CEO Heritas, Enschede, The Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl

[1] LGF = linguistic gut feeling (c) Yvette Hoitink, February 26, 2004 :-)
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 09:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC