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 12:07:46 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050527120029.00aaeef8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Thank you for your response.  I am happy with substituting 
"programmatically located" for
"programmatically determined" in my earlier proposal for consideration, and 
I think the points raised in that proposal would still apply in part (at 
least the use of "programmatically" would be consistent in level 1?).

Best wishes to you

  At 10:19 AM 5/27/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>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 16:08:21 UTC

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