2008/10/17 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/10/17 Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
Agree
about child checked but we hesitated on child-friendly because
the reading age of a lot of it is too high (16+).
"child-suitable"?
Child-safe? is shorter
There are two sides to something being good for children, though. It
needs to be "safe" (personally, I have more faith in children's
abilities to deal with the fact that Mr X had an affair with his
pool-boy, but I understand the creators wanting to avoid controversy
and get the content used rather than using it as a means to campaign
against censorship) and it also needs to be understandable by
children. "Child-safe" only covers the first of those,
"child-suitable" covers both. (I understand the reluctance to call it
"friendly", but I think "suitable" is ok since it means children
should be able to copy with it rather than meaning they will find it
easy to work with.)