- 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>
Gian: > > 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