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

RE: Guidelines or Standards

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:30:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4A08@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Guide Lines list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Despite the fact that the only definitive version of WCAG is English, 
> it would be difficult, in my humble opinion, to adopt a specific 
> regulatory language to suit every situation in every country.

Understood, and I certainly agree.  But it would seem worth doing for *one* audience rather than *none* unless there was compelling evidence that such an approach made the internationalization more difficult.  That case has not been made.

The argument seems to be that since we can’t do this for *all* languages it would not be fair to do it for *any*.

> Rewording will be inevitable 

I also understand this point too.  However, is there not the possibility that using regulatory language for the English version might actually *help* with translations?

In any case, my main point is still not addressed:

If you leave the rewording — which WAI *knows* is necessary — to outsiders, you loose control and introduce room for error.

This potential problem could be eliminated, at least for the U.S. English version (and perhaps other English versions as well?) and is not certain to cause more difficulties for other languages.  So I ask again:  Why not write the success criteria using regulatory phrasing?

If using regulatory language for the success criteria is a *real* and *known* problem, please provide an example of a specific WCAG2 sc, preferably at level 1,  that would be negatively impacted by such treatment.
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 02:30:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT