W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: diacritic marks

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:23 +0200
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <015d01c4cd80$353af220$680aa8c0@IBMA4E63BE0B9E>

Are diacritic marks  still required in the new draft or was i just missing
it.

I am forwarding an old email for context and the results of the Israel
internet society accessibility group (ISOC IL) conclusions

keep well all


Lisa
----- Original > > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lisa seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:22 AM
> > To: W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)
> > Subject: diacritic marks
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > diacritic marks - conclusions from ISOC IL
> >
> > We are happy with the current wording and prioritization of the success
> > criteria. :)
> >
> >  We would like however to suggest adding a level three criteria that
seas
> > the all diacritic marks necessary for pronunciation should be provided,
> and
> > should be removable at the users request.
> >
> > ISOC IL have also taken a n action item to document what words need what
> > diacritic marks in Hebrew to fulfill the criteria.
> >
> > Background
> > Some languages use diacritic marks to give the pronunciation of a word.
In
> > some languages (like Hebrew and Arabic) most spellings, without
diacritic
> > marks, can be resolved to more then one word. Use of context enables the
> > average reader to work out what word was intended.
> >
> >  Natural language processing used in screen readers can often guess what
> > word is intended without diacritic marks. However all screen readers
will
> > often make mistakes.
> >
> > User benefits
> >
> > It is estimated (by ISOC -il - need to get refrences) that 3% of the
> > population have a visually impaired memory which makes reading many
words
> > without diacritic marks extremely difficult. This segment of the
> population
> > can use a screen reader to help them though the reading process. However
> > when the screen reader guess a word incorrectly, they will often be
unable
> > to correct the mistake themselves, as guessing different pronunciation
of
> > words based on an identical spelling is difficult to impossible for many
> > dyslexics.
> >
> > It should also be remembered that screen readers are difficult to use
and
> > are expensive.
> >
> > Vision impaired people using screen readers are also affected by missing
> > diacritic marks.  All screen readers will  make mistakes, and will
> pronounce
> > the wrong word. This will occur more often then an incorrect word
> > pronunciation makes grammatical sense. The user then has to guess the
> > meaning of a sentence - by as guessing different pronunciation of words
> > based on an identical spelling. This extra processing time on the users
> part
> > means that they can not speed up the screen reader, and often have to
> reread
> > passages.
> >
> >
> > Finally I want to personally thank everyone who help contribute and
> resolve
> > this difficult issue.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Lisa Seeman
> >
> >
> >
> > Visit us at the UB  <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Access website
> >
> > UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> >
> >
> >
> > I spoke to Melingo (finally ) yesterday. I will meet up with them some
> time
> > over the next few weeks.
> >
> > Info so far:
> > User agents.:
> > what they call a screen reader ,   is   a program were you have to copy
> the
> > text into it and it will read it
> > So their screen reader need vision.  single installation NS4000
> > the average monthly salaried before tax and health insurance deductions
is
> > about NS5000
> > Average salary for a dyslexic is much lower.  Don't ask about other
> > disabilities
> >  I t does not help  completely vision impaired  people
> >
> > use of a similar tool on line as a web site exists (so they will not
give
> us
> > the right to do this) and costs  NS 350 up a month for personal use - if
> you
> > use it often it costs more.
> >
> > Again you need to copy and paste -it is not a portal.
> >
> > Authoring tools for the web owner to vowel the site
> > It is a finished product but they do not have a fixed price- depends to
> who
> >
> > They have another product, that makes a mp3 of a reading of your page.
The
> > user clicks a button to get the reading. For Peaple who can not read you
> > then can not tell were in the page to press, Peaple who can not see it
is
> > not useful. It helps low vision .
> >
> > According to their head of accessibility, this is based on ten years of
> > research and is proprietary.
> >
> > My summary:
> >
> > In terms of helping at the user end  we have two options.
> > I can  try to  help Melingo t u rn their "screen reader" into a true
> screen
> > reader -  but it will be years until such a product is available.  and
> will
> > be expensive for the end user.
> >
> >  Probably the best if slowest solution will be to sponsor research in
the
> > public domain at the Technion. Gregg, can you look into the possibility
of
> > raising financing ?
> > Again it will take years for a partial solution.
> >
> > Solving the problem from the authors side is immediate and cost
effective.
> > In other words - It can solve the problem today,   You can add the
vowels
> > for free without their tools in Unicode, you can buy word processor were
> you
> > can put in the vowels, and I hope switching a week or two to put up a
free
> > JavaScript tool to make it doable to  by  anyone. Mac come with a
similar
> > tool.
> > However acknowledging that for a large site this is an enormous amount
of
> > work - they can buy  Nakdan from Melingo.
> >
> > The clincher for me is the fact that Nakdan does make mistakes. At the
> user
> > end there is nothing to be done but confusion, because you do not know
> what
> > the word was meant to be. At the author end you can easily correct your
> work
> > using a word processor or free tool.
> >
> >
> > Back to the checkpoint:
> >
> > I think the wording as it stands:
> > 'Provide information needed for unambiguous decoding of the characters
and
> > words in the content'
> >
> > is perfect- when the  user agent decipher the word correctly, then the
> > checkpoint has been   fulfilled automatically. When the  user agents
> portal
> > are unable to  adds the vowels,   then   clearly not all the information
> > needed for unambiguous decoding has been   provided, and the
> responsibility
> > falls on the web content provider . I am going to put up a site that
goes
> > through these issues from beginning to end. It may help....
> >
> >
> >
> >  All the best,
> >
> > Lisa Seeman
> >
> > UnBounded Access
> >
> > Widen the World Web
> >
> > http://www.UBaccess.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 15:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT