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

FW: [Techniques] Drft General Technique for GL 3.1 L2 SC1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:08:03 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000198913270@spamarrest.com>
  

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks for the hard work.    

 

I think the techniques here though differ from the  SC that they are tied
to. 

 

The proposed text is both more and less than the Success criterion cited
requires.

 

It is more in that the SC only requires that pronunciation be locatable.  If
there are multiple pronunciations - the guideline does not require you to
say which one is appropriate (that would be 'programmatically determined'.
So much of the text below does not apply.  At least not for this SC.

 

The Level 3 success criteria for this guideline does specify that the
meaning should be indicated but not the pronunciation.   But that would not
go here for this Level 2 SC and it is meaning - not pronunciation (though
you might be able to work backward).

 

It is also more since it requires this for phrases.  But the SC in
consideration is only for words

 

It is less than guideline because it says "where meaning depends on
pronunciation"

Yet this SC does not restrict itself to any particular words or phrases.  It
requires that all words be locatable. 

 

 

Remember - programmatically locatable just means that  you get a list of
meanings and the correct one is there somewhere.  (like when you look a word
up in a dictionary)

 

You need 'programmatically determined' to have it tell you which meaning (or
pronunciation) is the correct one of the bunch. 

 

 

Thanks  again

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 5:40 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: [Techniques] Drft General Technique for GL 3.1 L2 SC1

 

The proposal below is part of the first draft of material for the General
Techniques for Guideline 3.1, the guideline that contains some key
requirements about language use. It's my hope that this material can be
included in the next internal working draft, and that it will eventually
make its way-- duly modified and corrected-- into the next public working
draft.

 

Guideline 3.1 L2 SC1: requirs: 

<current>

The meanings and pronunciations of all words in the content can be
programmatically located. 

</current>

 

It would be very helpful if people with knowledge of writing systems for
languages that do not use Roman or romanized alphabets would review and make
suggestions for corrections, additions, deletions, etc.

 

<proposed>

 

Short-name for this technique:
Pronunciation for users

Task
Information about the pronunciation of a run of text is explicitly
associated with the 

run of text where meaning depends on pronunciation.

 

Description
There are many languages in which a run of text may mean different things 

depending on how the text is pronounced. This is common in East Asian 

languages as well as Hebrew, Arabic,  and other languages; it also occurs in


English and other Western European languages.  Users with disabilities that
make 

it difficult to use contextual cues as a guide to pronunciation and meaning
benefit 

when information about how to pronounce potentially ambiguous text is
available.

 

Techniques for associating content with information about pronunciation vary


depending upon the type and language of the content. For example, Ruby 

Annotation is appropriate for indicating pronunciation in some languages,
such as 

Japanese, Chinese, and Korean.  However, Ruby may be unnecessary in 

languages where Unicode fonts can include diacritical marks that 

convey pronunciation.

 

Ruby Annotation allows the author to annotate a "base text," providing both
a 

guide to pronunciation and, in some cases, a definition as well.  Ruby is
commonly 

used for text in Japanese and other East Asian languages.  Ruby Annotation
is 

defined as a module for XHTML 1.1.

 

There are two types of Ruby markup: simple and complex. Simple Ruby markup 

applies to a run of text such as a complete word or phrase. This is known as
the 

"base" text.  The Ruby annotation that indicates how to pronounce the term
is 

usually displayed immediately before the base text, and is shown in a
smaller font. 

(The term "Ruby" is derived from a small font used for this purpose in
printed 

texts.)  Simple Ruby markup also provides a "fallback" option for user
agents that 

do not support Ruby markup.

 

Complex Ruby markup makes it possible to associate a single base text with
more 

than one annotation.  In such cases, the first annotation would typically 

indicate pronunciation and the second would provide the meaning.  Complex
Ruby 

markup also makes it possible to divide the baste text into smaller units,
each of 

which may be associated with a separate Ruby annotation.  Complex Ruby 

markup does not support the fallback option.

 

Note: The primary reason for indicating pronunciation through Ruby or any
other 

means is to make the content accessible to people with disabilities who can
read 

and understand the language of the content if information about
pronunciation is 

provided. Creating explicit association between the content and the
pronunciation 

information ensures that pronunciation information remains available if the 

presentation format is adapted to meet the user's needs. 

 

Editor's note: Complex Ruby markup may be sufficient to satisfy this success


criterion when pronunciation and meaning are provided in separate
annotations of 

the same base text

 

Editor's Note: As an additional benefit, it has also been suggested that
Ruby 

Annotation might be used to make content accessible to people who use
symbolic 

languages together with or as an alternative to conventional text.  For
example, a 

symmbol image could be used as a Ruby annotation above a base text.  Such 

practices might benefit people whose speech or reading are impaired as the
result 

of stroke or other injury to the brain, or from other causes. (See A.
Judson, M. 

Lundalv, B. Farre, and L. Nordberg, <a 

href="http://dewey.computing.dundee.ac.uk/ccf/cop/#d0e876">Concept Coding 

Framework</a>) However, the Ruby 1.0 Specification does not support use of 

images, so implementation of this suggestion would depend upon a change in
the 

Ruby specification.
Resources
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/">Ruby Annotation</a>
<a href="http://ncam.wgbh.org/salt/guidelines/sec11.html">IMS Guidelines for


 

Topic-Specific Accessibility</a>
HTML Techniques
<a 

 

href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/#lang-att_change">Identifyin

 

g language changes</a>
CSS Techniques
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ruby">CSS 3 Ruby</a>

</proposed>

 

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility> /research/accessibility 

 
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2004 17:08:15 GMT

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