W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > August 2017

mistake and clarifications of plain language survey

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 23:56:36 +0300
To: "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15da4ba87b6.d224cf0b166328.8960461272728574687@zoho.com>
I was looking at the  results for the survey on plain language

Firstly it is meant to be at AAA, not single A. that is a mistake in the survey. Can people renew their responses at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/sc_august2017/?. ?


Also the SC is based on core vocabularies that are used in every language that addresses special needs. I doubt there is any language that is subject to accessibility legislation and does not have a core vocabulary. If you are unsure about this you can probably do a web search on "core vocabulary" and the name of the language you are concerned about. However if you sill think this is not enough for AAA, then we have put in the git hub links to open source scripts by which anyone can build an online core vocabulary. (This is all discussed at the single A version of the issue at https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30)  


Also, note that the scope is very limited, so we are talking about thinks like labels and error messages. However it can also be reached via coga semantics using coga-easylang attribute so that freedom of expression is never comprised.
The other bullet points we addressed all the internalization issues that were raised when it was in the first working draft. If there are more that can not be addressed we can delete that bullet point.


In terms of additional tooling, Microsoft have the tools as part of their cloud subscription fee. IBM have similar capabilities, and, open source scripts have been added to the github for building core vocabularies. The translation industry also have a full suit of tooling that can be used for this purpose. However if that is still considered a risk I would be happy if section were label at risk unless more tools are available, However at AAA it seems overkill.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2017 20:57:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 August 2017 20:57:03 UTC