The reviewer says, "The real problem with acronyms and abbreviations is how the speech synthesizers speak the acronym, not so much how it is expanded." John's June proposal included the following proposal for a level 3 Success Criterion, "A mechanism is available for finding the correct pronunciation of any word whose pronunciation cannot be determined from context." This proposal was not accepted at the June face-to-face meeting because we determined that pronunciation may best be handled by a language-specific extension to WCAG 2.0. A mechanism has not yet been proposed.
Propose: Close this issue.
Rationale: Proposals for a SC about pronunciation have not found enough support in the WCAG WG to continue to pursue the issue.
The reviewer suggests removing or rewording the 2nd and 3rd bullets of the benefits.
Providing the expansion of abbreviations and acronyms not only helps people who are not familiar with the abbreviation or acronym but can clarify which meaning of an abbreviation or acronym is appropriate to use. For example, the acronym "ADA" stands for both the American with Disabilities Act as well as the American Dental Association.
Defining key terms and specialized language will help people who are not familiar with the topic.
I agree that the benefits do not clarify the issue well enough. The Benefits section of the Guide to Guideline 3.1 Level 3 Success Criterion 3 explains different ways that abbreviations can confuse people with reading disabilities, memory loss, low vision, and people who have difficulty recognizing words and using context to aid understanding. However, it does not clarify how people will benefit from providing abbreviations.
Propose:
I'm not finding any scientific support for expanding abbreviations to help people with reading disabilities. In fact, it sugests teaching people how to use abbreviations to make it easier to take notes, and to use word prediction programs by using abbreviations. Matter of fact, we are the reference for most of the guidelines/strategies out there...so where did we get the requirement?
I think the only documented reason is for use with screen reader. Anyone who is not familair with a word will have to look it, why different just for smeone with a learning or reading disability?@@ended
Current wording of the 1st benefit: Phrases from various languages are often interspersed in writing. When these phrases are identified, a speech synthesizer can voice text with the appropriate accent and pronunciation. When they are not identified, the speech synthesizer will use the default accent and pronunciation of the language on the rest of the content, which can make the phrase unintelligible. Identifying changes in language will also allow a tool to ask for automatic translations of that content. When editing content, authoring tools can switch between appropriate spelling dictionaries.
Comments:
Propose:
Replace the benefit with,
Cultures often "borrow" or adopt foreign phrases and words. For example, the French word "rendevous" has been adopted in English. When words and phrases are adopted the original pronunciation is often kept. Therefore, in an English sentence "rendevous" is said with a French pronunciation "ron-day-voo" instead of an English pronunciation "ren-dev-oos." When foreign phrases are not marked, screen readers do not know to change the accent and mispronounce the foreign phrase or word which often makes the content unintelligible.
The reviewer wishes us to
education level."
No rationale is given for either of these suggestions.
Propose:
Rationale:
There are two comments:
cannot be modified by editors), this make content inaccessible also if the content is done by a third part?"
Propose: close this issue
Rationale:
"je ne sais quoi" has become part of English in England - need another example.
Christophe proposes:
In the following sentence, "He maintained that the DDR (German Democratic Republic) was just a 'Treppenwitz der Weltgeschichte'.", the German phrase 'Treppenwitz der Weltgeschichte' is marked as German. Depending on the markup language, English may either be marked as the language for the entire document except where specified, or marked at the paragraph level.
In the following sentence, "In 'Herfsttij der middeleeuwen' ('The Waning of the Middle Ages'), the Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga described the
transition from the middle ages to the renaissance.", the Dutch phrase 'Herfsttij der middeleeuwen' is marked as Dutch. Depending on the markup
language, English may either be marked as the language for the entire document except where specified, or marked at the paragraph level.
Propose: Replace the current example 2 with Christophe's first example without the last sentence (begins, "Depending on the markup language..") - since that is an implementation choice/issue.
The reviewer says:
The first two of the Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1 ("A mechanism is available for finding definitions for all words in text content. [I]" and "A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon. [I]") seem both meaningless and inappropriate. Surely, it is purely a personal decision and a personal choice of implementation for a user on whether or not to look up a word (jargon) or not what source to use for that. When I am reading an English book, I might as an individual choose to consult a dictionary for a certain term or expression I encounter. I fail to see why it would be the book's author's responsibility to provide me with a reference to such a dictionary or a mechanism for finding one.
If the purpose is to merely suggest that a glossary of terms and definitions should be included, then the wording needs to be amended to reflect that.
Propose: Refer the reviwer to the Guides for L3 SC1 and SC2 to explain the benefits and intent of these 2 criteria (after they are polished up) then close the issue.
The reviewer is concerned that "upper secondary education level" will mean different things to different people.
Propose: Close the issue.
Rationale: We acknowledge that education levels may be different in different communities, however refer to UNESCO 1997 that has been able to identify basic patterns of education across countries. Our definition is based on that document.
The reviewer suggests that we add a SC to "use meaningful link text (i.e. navigation controls), or provide context that allows users to infer meaning where the link text is otherwise meaningless. In the latter case for example, a link to a full article via its title, followed by a link with the link text "more" provides context for the otherwise meaningless word "more." This is likely HTML specific so it might fit as an example for a more general requirement the interface controls be meaningful."
The HTML Technique 9.1 Link Text is about providing useful link text and references guideline 2.4 L2 SC4 - "The destination of each programmatic reference to another delivery unit is identified through words or phrases that either occur in text or can be programmatically determined."
Propose: Close the issue.
Rationale: It is addressed by guideline 2.4 L2 SC4.
The reviewer has 2 comments
The reviewer lists 8 issues with using abbr and acronym, including lack of support in some user agents, questioning accessibility benefits, etc.
Propose: Incorporate the list of issues into the technique on abbreviations.
The examples are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7.
Closed: I fixed the numbering in the source and closed the issue.