- From: Lois Wakeman <lois@lois.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:11:36 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Matt, >From a writer's perspective, I'd like to explore the analogy further. 1. Book titles and HTML page titles have to fit in a confined space, and therefore need to be short and to the point to be legible or entirely visible, respectively. (Likewise chapter and web page headings, for much the same reason.) 2. Library record cards and DC metadata do not have the same physical limitations, and it *may* be advantageous to expand on the limited spine/title information for the assistance of the reader. For example, imagine that I find 10 books or pages called "Easy vegetarian recipes", and cannot decide which to look at. Having some extra information on the subject (e.g. Middle Eastern, gourmet, budget, one-pot, Indian, Chinese...) may well make it easier to narrow down my choices. But the card/DC title should *begin* with the book/page title to make it easy to associate the two. (Re: 'using plain language': all content, unless it is intended for machine reading only, should be as accessible as we can make it: but the subject matter can often preclude universal accessibility: for example, complex technical or academic papers, however clearly written, will be largely incomprehensible to people outside the domain since they unavoidably presume prior knowledge. And Jonathan Chetwynd's experience with peepo, as discussed on this list in the past, showed that what works for one kind of learning difficulty may not be helpful for another. That is, what is plain to one person is not to a second. This message is a prime example of text that would draw a shrug or puzzled look from many!) Kind regards, Lois Wakeman -------------------------------- http://lois.co.uk http://siteusability.com http://communicationarts.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 10:14:24 UTC