W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:41:10 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050527101859.0222bc10@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org


For Guideline 3.1, do we also want to make L1SC2 state "programmatically 
determined" instead of "mechanism is available" (if that's what we 
mean)?   Use of "programmatically determined" in L1SC2:

(1) would be consistent with such use in L1SC1 (adopted at recent Thursday 
call),

(2) would ensure consistency of usage at least within a single level 
designation for a single guideline (since L1SC3 was rejected at recent 
Thursday call),

(3) seems to me more "precise" from a testability standpoint (this is a 
level 1 criterion), and

(4) would include a currently-defined term ("programmatically determined" 
is defined in the latest draft of WCAG2.0 [1], whereas "mechanism is 
available" has no proposed definition yet within WCAG WG to my knowledge?).



NOTE: If we decide to use "mechanism is available", a possible ambiguity 
may arise (available "to whom/what"?).   I believe the
assumption is "to users", but application of term should be made clearer..


Thanks and best wishes,
Tim Boland NIST

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary



     At 08:58 AM 5/27/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>I took an action item yesterday to repost the 3.1 proposal to reflect
>decisions reached on the call.  Text version follows; HTML version
>attached.
>
><26 May update>
>Guideline 3.1: Proposal 2005-05-26Proposal for Guideline 3.1 ("meaning")
>Draft 2005-05-26
>Submitted by John Slatin
><proposed>
>Guideline 3.1 . Make text content readable and understandable.
>Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
>   [Adopted 26 May] The primary natural language or languages of the
>delivery
>   unit can be programmatically determined.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L1 SC1
>   A mechanism for finding the expanded form of acronyms and
>abbreviations is
>   available.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L1 SC2
>   [Rejected 26 May]A measure of the education level required to read the
>content
>   is available.
>
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L1 SC3
>Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
>   A mechanism is available for finding definitions for all words in text
>
>content.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L2 SC1
>   A mechanism is available for identifying the natural language of each
>foreign
>   passage or phrase in the content. Foreign passages or phrases are
>written in a
>   language that is different from the language of the delivery unit as a
>whole.
>   Note: This requirement does not apply to individual words or phrases
>that have
>   become part of the primary language of the content. This is because
>"correct"
>   pronunciation of such words and phrases might confuse or distract
>native
>   speakers of the content's primary language.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L2 SC2
>   One or more of the following alternative versions is available when
>text
>   content requires the reading ability expected of native speakers who
>have
>   completed at least nine years of school:
>     A text summary that can be read by adults with the reading ability
>expected
>     of native speakers who have completed fewer than seven years of
>school.
>     One or more simplified graphical illustrations.
>     A spoken version of the text content.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L2 SC3
>Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
>   [Adopted 26 May] A mechanism is available for identifying specific
>definitions
>   of words used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and
>jargon.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC1
>   [Updated 25 May] A mechanism is available for finding the correct
>   pronunciation of any word whose pronunciation cannot be determined
>from
>   context.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC2
>   Section headings and link text are understandable when read by
>themselves or
>   as a group (for example in a list of links or a table of contents).
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC3
>   A mechanism is available to identify text that states important ideas
>or
>   provides important information.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC4
>   For delivery units at the first or second level in a set of delivery
>units,
>   text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected
>for
>   native speakers who have completed fewer than seven years of school.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC5
>   For delivery units below the second level in a set of delivery units,
>text
>   content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for
>native
>   speakers who have completed fewer than nine years of school.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC6
>   Simplified graphical illustrations are available when text presents
>ideas or
>   describes processes that users must understand in order to use the
>content.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC7
>   A spoken version of text content is available.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC8
>   Signed video is available for key pages or sections of pages.
>   Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC9 (in progress)
></proposed>
>Changes following the 26 May 2005 WG call
>   L1 SC 1: Adopted; "programmatically determined" replaces "A mechanism
>is
>   available"
>   L1 SC3: Rejected
>   L3 SC1: adopted, with proviso to work on processes for testing
>"unusual" and
>   "restricted"
>Change introduced on 25 May 2005
>   Not yet discussed by WG: L3 SC2 (pronunciation( has been changed so
>that it
>   now requires a mechanism for finding the "correct pronunciation" of
>"any word
>   whose pronunciation cannot be determined from context" instead of
>requiring
>   pronunciation support for "all" words in text content. This still
>isn't quite
>   right: it introduces a new problem of testing whether pronunciation
>can be
>   determined from context. But pronunciation support is important and I
>think
>   this is better than my original proposal requiring support for all
>words in
>   the content.
>Differences between draft of 21 May 2005 and draft of 30 April
>   L1 SC1 now refers explicitly to the "primary natural language or
>languages" of
>   the content. This responds to questions raised by Wendy and Tim
>Boland; the
>   I18N Workign Group notes that the lang and xml:lang attributes may
>take
>   comma-separated language identifiers for documents that have multiple
>primary
>   languages, e.g., Canadian documents in which English and French have
>equal
>   place. Note that identifying multiple primary languages still requires
>that
>   language changes within the body of the content are identified when
>they occur
>   (as per L2 SC2; we may need to promote L2 SC2 to L1 for this reason).
>   L1 SC3 now requires a readability measure of the text content
>("measure of the
>   education level required to read the content") instead of calling for
>a
>   description of the education level of the intended audience. I believe
>this
>   addresses Jason's concern about the need to provide precise data about
>actual
>   educational attainment within the target audience by refocusing the SC
>on the
>   content instead of the audience.
>   L3 SC1 changes "intended definitions" to "specific definitions" of
>words used
>   in unusual or restricted ways. This avoids the problem of seeming to
>require a
>   test of authorial intent, and I think addresss Tim Boland's concern.
>   Brief summary of differences between this proposal and the current
>wording
>Relatively small changes
>   Several SC were rewritten to describe functional outcomes, as per LA
>decision
>   and baseline analysis: L1 SC1, SC2; L2 SC1, SC2; L3 SC 1, SC2
>   L2 SC1 (meaning and pronunciations) is broken into two SC and the SC
>about
>   pronunciation information has been moved to L3
>   L2 SC2 (idioms) has been moved to L3 and merged into L3 SC1.
>Rationale: L3 SC1
>   deals with words used in highly specific ways. An idiom is a word used
>by
>   native speakers in a way that breaks the bounds of the dictionary
>definition,
>   so I think that idioms and jargon both qualify as instances of the
>more
>   general category.
>Major changes
>   L3 SC3 (statement asserting that the following list of strategies for
>reducing
>   complexity has been considered) is deleted.
>A number of new SC have been introduced. The primary goal was to replace
>L3 SC3
>with meaningful and testable success criteria that would promote
>readability and
>make understanding easier for people with a range of disabilities,
>including
>reading disabilities.The new SC are:
>   L1 SC3: requires a description of the education level of the intended
>audience
>   for the content.
>   L2 SC3: requires one or more alternative versions (including optional
>non-text
>   alternatives) for text content that requires education level at or
>above 10th
>   grade (US), 10 years in school/upper secondary level international
>   classification.
>   L3 SC2: requires pronunciation information. This one was originally
>included
>   in L2 SC1; has been separated from the issue of definitions and moved
>to L3
>   because it seems significantly more difficult to provide.
>   L3 SC4: requires a mechanism for identifying most important points in
>text
>   content.
>   L3 SC5: requires that text on first- and second-level pages is
>readable at 6th
>   grade level (US)/end of primary education international classification
>L3 SC6:
>   requires that text below second-level is readable at 8th grade level
>(US)/late
>   lower secondary international classification
>   L3 SC7: requires simplified graphical illustrations of important
>   ideas/descritions of processes (this is an option at L2, required at
>L3
>   L3 SC8: requires spoken-word version of text content (also an option
>at L2
>   that becomes a requirement at L3
>   L3 SC9: requires signed video for key pages or passages
></26 May update>
>
>
>"Good design is accessible design."
>John Slatin, Ph.D.
>Director, Accessibility Institute
>University of Texas at Austin
>FAC 248C
>1 University Station G9600
>Austin, TX 78712
>ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
>email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
>web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 14:42:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC