Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for WCAG 2.1

I vote 3
On Feb 6, 2017 11:08 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> We had issues with reading level , for example the word "mode" is a lower
> reading level than "hot or cold" . the lower reading level is much harder
> to understand.
> The reason to go with Jeanne's proposal is because wcag _might_ find it
> more testable. This would only be, in my opinion, because they have not
> bothered read the whole proposal and testability section  (or they do not
> want new tools) Also i am not sure it is more testable in different
> languages and that is essential for WCAG. Wordlists requiremnts however,
> can work easily in any language and wordlists can be automatically
> generated by parsing a few sites.
>
> I agree that the "unless..."  clause is only human testable but that it
> very typical for wcag.
>
>
> I want to suggest three options
>
> 1 -  we retract our current pull requests and put these in instead
>
> 2 - we go with the current pull requests. If they fail and the comments
> are hard to address then we go with Jeanne's
>
> 3 -we go with the current pull requests. we can revisit this if needed
>
> My vote is 3, to go with the current wording and see what happens
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:00:24 +0200 *Jeanne
> Spellman<jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com
> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>>* wrote ----
>
> A group of us at The Paciello Group (TPG) have been meeting every week in
> January to comment on the WCAG 2.1 proposals.  Because we test WCAG 2.0 all
> day, every (business) day, we have a lot of experience with both the
> language of WCAG and the testing of WCAG.  What we decided this week is
> that we want to focus our efforts toward helping COGA TF draft success
> criteria that will get into WCAG 2.1 and will accomplish most of what you
> want -- even if it is phrased differently.
>
> We started with the proposals that we thought would be the least
> controversial to the WCAG WG to include.  I looked at the Plain Language
> proposals and did my best to look at the needs identified by COGA TF, and
> craft language that I thought would be acceptable to the WCAG WG and be
> included in the first draft version of WCAG 2.1.
>
> The wording is quite different, but in my opinion, addresses the needs
> identified.  I chose reading level, because it is internationally
> standardized, and there are automated tests already available.  When I look
> at Technique  G153: Making the text easier to read
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G153.html , it covers most of the
> items that the COGA TF identified.
>
> Issue 30 Proposal:
>
> Understandable Labels:  Navigation elements and form labels do not
> require reading ability greater than primary education level.  (A)  [link
> to WCAG’s definition of primary education level from UNESCO standard]
>
>
> Issue 41:
>
> Understandable Instructions:  Headings, error messages and instructions
> for completing tasks do not require reading ability greater than lower
> secondary education level.  (AA)  [link to WCAG’s definition of lower
> secondary level from UNESCO standard]
>
>
> Delta 3.1.5 (rewrite of existing WCAG 3.1.5)
>
> Understandable Content: Blocks of text either:  (AAA)
>
> ·        have a reading level no more advanced than lower secondary
> education, or
>
> ·        a version is provided that does not require reading ability more
> advanced than lower secondary education. [links to WCAG’s definitions of
> lower secondary education and blocks of text]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>