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: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:19:51 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B01248518@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Tim Boland" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Tim Boland wrote:

<blockquote>
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)?   
</blockquote>

No.  *If* we don't want to say "mechanism is available," the appropriate
substitution in this case would "programmatically located" rather than
"programmatically determined."  Both are defined in the glossary.

John


"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/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Boland [mailto:frederick.boland@nist.gov] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:41 am
To: John M Slatin
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call



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 15:19:53 UTC

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