- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:28:52 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ig@W3.org
> I think "natural language" is the proper term for what we want.
>
>Here are three definitions
What you appear to mean is "'Natural language' is the term understood
by computer geeks, and my biases toward that jargon term are backed
up by three dictionary definitions. If real people in the real world
don't understand the term, they can damn well look it up. *I*
understand it and *I* looked it up. Why can't they?"
Our entire goal is to make a Guidelines document that everyone, even
neophytes, can understand. Please don't draw us down the intractable
rabbit hole of arguing that certain jargon terms are unavoidable.
Certain of them are, like "captions" (not the same as subtitles) and
"audio descriptions" (not the same as auditory descriptions or even
play-by-play <http://www.joeclark.org/livead.html>).
"Natural language" is *avoidable* jargon. So let's avoid it.
Also, nice job appending three previous messages.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques:
<http://joeclark.org/access/>
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 10:33:56 UTC