- From: Yvette P. Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:16:07 +0200
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> 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