- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:47:17 +0200 (MEST)
- To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > > Yvette: I also think we should include difficult language > > > as an example of complex content. > > > > Jens: Disagreed. For example, take > > > > "In interspecies transmissions of transmissible spongiform > > encephalopathies, the agent has to overcome a species barrier > > that is largely influenced by the rate of homology between > > the prion proteins (PrPC) two involved species. > > [...]" [1] > > > > I claim that this excerpt consists of 'difficult language' > > (for 99% of the population), but it is /not/ complex, not per > > se. So I recommend not to include it in the definition. > > [...] Personally, I guestimate using difficult words is the > number 1 reason why people find a website complex. Therefore, > I would really like to include is as an example of complex > content. Well, there's only /one/ paragraph on a page, represented by the example above, and you would really say it's /complex/? I agree that something strange or weird can be hard to understand, but strange, foreign, weird, this all does not imply that it's complex...!? I find this very interesting, since it shows how complex 'complex' really is ;) And if you all agree that (overdoing) one single word can be complex, than I'm beaten -- but otherwise, I would /not/ associate complexity with the (kind of) language being used. (Hope I made myself clear ;) Kind regards, Jens. -- Jens Meiert Interface Architect (IxD) http://meiert.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 16:47:48 UTC