Slightly away from the original topic, Chauncey I think you raise a great point... I wonder if the lawyers who insist T&Cs are prominent and must be fully 'eye-balled' to be accepted would be willing to take it a step further and look at the usability of their document? Maybe creating an index of important points in the end-users language (ie. not legal mumbo jumbo) and then reference the full text below? That way users are more likely to skim it, pick up relevant points and hopefully read further instead of thinking 'oh dear, yes I accept because it's too painful to read' or in Jack's daughter's case, actually wasting valuable years trying to understand :-) I'm thinking something similar in structure to the W3C Accessibility checkpoints doc, but obviously tailored for legal content: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html What do you think?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34863 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
