- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:48:59 +0100
- To: Matthew Smith <matt@kbc.net.au>
- Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Matthew, this looks like an interesting rpoject - not least as a personal learning exercise for you, since the way tolearn seems to be by doing :-) Couple of comments below: On Monday, Dec 15, 2003, at 23:24 Europe/Rome, Matthew Smith wrote: > The work in question is a Web-based survey tool for use in schools in > this region. The content authors will have no control over > formatting, other than being able to break the questions into > paragraphs. (Text is presented inside <p> ... </p>; a single line > break in the input will be substituted with <br /> at time of page > display, more than one line break with </p><p>.) I'm not a great fan of <br />, but I do like using lists. Have you looked at some other text-to-html converters to see if they'd do the job? (txt2html is a PERL script in some incarnation, and Wikis tend to do this too...) > Despite having tight control over document structure, the content > author can still 'break' the overall accessibility of the page. Naturally :-) The point is to help them avoid this if they want to. > 1.1) There is a Perl module that can produce a Flesh-Kincaid > readability score. This could be used to provide feedback to the > content author. Are you interested in looking separately at the idea of linking a vocabulary, and checking that everything in the document is in the vocabulary? This is a similar approach, but potentially more powerful than a Flesh-Kincaid, since it can allow for things like automated dictionary lookup on uncommon terms or phrases. > 1.3) Appropriate graphic representing the question to be provided for > each question. (The upload form will force a non-null alt value to be > provided.) I'd suggest that instead you have a separate button which says "this image adds nothing" which puts in a blank alt and a longdesc. > 1.4) Readability information for 1.1 and 1.2 to be embedded as > metadata so that we can 'crawl' the questions for possible readability > problems. I'm interested in how you do this... > 2.1) Maintain an glossary of ALL abbreviation used in text. There > would be two levels - a simple expansion to populate the <abbr></abbr> > and a longer textual description which would be accessed by > hyperlinking the term in the text. (The glossary mechanism would > receive a query string which would allow the user to return to exactly > where they left off, having read the full text.) See my question above about applying this approach more generally to vocabulary... > 2.2) As the content author enters questions, anything that looks like > an abbreviation (rule: more than one capital in a word) will be > checked against the glossary. The author will be prompted to provide > definitions for the term, including an option 'this is not an > abbreviation/acronym'. The mechanism is much like that of a > spell-checker. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 11 January 2004 18:05:19 UTC