- From: Mike Brown <mike@signify.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:50:43 +1200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Is the "reading age" of a site, assuming it can be measured, an >> accessibility issue? Is there a limit to how far information can be >> "simplified" before it loses its usefulness? Charles> Certainly there is a limit to how far information can be simplifie before Charles> it uses its usefulness. But there are plenty of 7 year-olds with diabetes Charles> (to pick one example) who are for the most part able to manage their Charles> condition by themselves, given information in an appropriate form. I Charles> suspect that increasing their reading age to that of a 14-year old would Charles> take, on average, about 7 years (for each one)... My reading of the article was that it suggested that the diabetes sites be written in such language that "an average educated nine year old" can understand it. And that the author was critical of the current sites which "would need the reading ability of an educated person aged between 11 and 16.8 years old to understand [them]". I don't see that this is an accessibility issue. Yes of course make resources for children available if they are part of the target audience, but how can a site's content be considered unaccessible if the "average educated 11-16.8 year old" can understand it? I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation. Content is the hardest part of a website. I'm a web developer and invariably the content for a website is the last thing that arrives from a client. They almost inveitably underestimate what's involved in writing and getting together the content. I guess the underlying interest in my asking the original questions is something like: How far is it realistic to make comprehension of content an accessbility issue? In building a site, the aim is to make it accessible to anyone. I don't think that's unrealistic. We may fail at times, or not do it the best way, but it's something we try to attain. But to make understanding the content an accessibility issue? How far do you go? At what reading age does it become unaccessible? Note that I'm not at all arguing against clear, well-written and edited content. Or against providing content that is understandable by a 9 year old, or someone with Down's Syndrome if they are part of the target audience. But does every site have to provide content that is understandable "an average educated nine year old" in order to be considered accessible? That's not a requirement of every book in the library on diabetes. Why should it be a requirement of every website on diabetes? Regards Mike Brown
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 21:51:04 UTC