RE: [wcag2] Definition of 'complex content'

> Hi Gregg,
> 
> 
> > Do you have a final recommendation?
> 
> first of all -- apologies for the late reply. Meanwhile, I 
> created a new definition for 'complex content' (please see my 
> initial message [1] for
> details) to be included in the Working Draft [2]:
> 
> "In general, content is considered complex if it requires 
> much effort and trouble to be analyzed or understood. In 
> particular, this could mean that the displayed information is 
> too capacious, is ordered too dense, consists of many 
> interconnected parts or uses different presentation styles 
> for kindred information chunks.
> 
> Observance of these guidelines helps to make sure that 
> content does not become too complex."
> 
> Feedback and comments are appreciated, and I hope this 
> definition is basically suited for our needs. (And I 
> especially hope the finishing sentence reaches consent :)
> 

Hi Jens,

I like the drift of your formulation but I think some of the wording is too
complex and the sentences are too long. 
There are several words or phrases which I think are hard to understand or
unclear:
Capacious
Ordered too dense
Kindred information chuncks
Observance

I also think we should include difficult language as an example of complex
content. 

<Counter-proposal>
Content is considered complex if it is hard to analyze or understand it.
Following these guidelines helps to make content less complex.

Examples of complex content:
* content that contains much information
* content that uses words the visitor doesn't know
* content that is presented very close together
* content that consists of many parts 
* content that uses different presentation styles for similar types of
information. 
</counter-proposal>

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 13:13:37 UTC