All of the following issues were addressed by edits to the 23 November 2005 WD of "Understanding WCAG 2.0:" 959, 1101, 1406, 1407, 1435, 1567.
Close: Addressed by edits to examples
Previous wording of the 1st benefit: Phrases from various languages are often interspersed in writing. When these phrases are identified, a speech synthesizer can voice text with the appropriate accent and pronunciation. When they are not identified, the speech synthesizer will use the default accent and pronunciation of the language on the rest of the content, which can make the phrase unintelligible. Identifying changes in language will also allow a tool to ask for automatic translations of that content. When editing content, authoring tools can switch between appropriate spelling dictionaries.
Comments:
Close: addressed by edits - benefits were reworded, the problematic languages is no longer included.
Close: addressed by edits. The benefits for 3.1.5 say:
This success criterion benefits people with reading disabilities who can understand complex ideas and processes presented in highly readable text or by other means, such as graphics illustrating relationships and processes or through the spoken word.
Reading disabilities such as dyslexia affect the ability to recognize individual words. Decoding must be automatic in order for people to read fluently. The act of decoding text word by word consumes much of the mental energy that most people are able to use for understanding what they read.
Suggest rejecting and close with the following explanation:
The Working Group agrees that clear, understandable text is extremely important for accessibility, especially for users with intellectual/reading disabilities. However, WCAG 2.0 success criteria must be testable-- that is, must be statements that are either true or false when applied to specific Web content. The requirement to "use the clearest and simplest language appropriate to the site's content" (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.1, Priority 1) is not testable in this sense, and therefore cannot appear at Level 1. Even a testable success criterion requiring authors to write in certain ways (e.g., clearly and simply) could not appear at Level 1 in WCAG 2.0, because Level 1 success criteria can impose only minimal constraints on default content and presentation. The Working Group has carefully considered these issues, and has adopted a testable success criterion for readability. Guideline 3.1.5 requires supplemental content when text demands reading ability above the lower secondary education level as defined by the International Standard Classification of Education. Supplemental content may be either a text summary that requires reading ability less advanced than the lower secondary education level, visual illustration of concepts and processes necessary for understanding the content, or a spoken-word version of the content.
The Working Group would be glad to consider references to research data that clearly support a readability requirement at a higher level.
This comment applies to the following 2 level 3 success criteria:
3.1.3 A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon.
3.1.4 A mechanism for finding the expanded form of abbreviations is available.
Suggest rejecting and closing: The sufficient techniques for both of these include techniques that require the author to provide information either through markup or through text - to provide the links that the user agent can follow. Therefore, these are not solely the responsibility of the user agent.
Issue: It is recommended that the home page contains at least one image (which could be a photo, graphic, diagram, etc.) which clearly represents the content of the site. Web authors should ask themselves the following question: “If I just looked at this image without reading supporting text, would I be able to guess correctly what the site is about?” Rationale is provided in the issue text.
Thoughts: This seems most related to L3SC5 (provide a supplement), although unsure if it would be considered a "graphical illustration of a concept" - the concept being the home page. This is potentially an optionl General Technique.
Suggest following changes and close: Add as an advisory technology-independent technique for 3.1.5.
Issue: It is proposed that all pages include a simple summary of the page’s content in the form of an abstract in the meta tag description.
Suggest following changes and close: Add as an advisory technology-independent technique for 3.1.5. An additional advisory technique would be to make this summary human-viewable on demand (for example, the National Library of Medicine Web site includes a link in the navbar to view metadata--- not sure it's on all pages but it's on some of them and very useful).
Issue was posted in August re 30 June WD and not addressed previously.
Greg's explanation about dyslexia as issues with written language and sound corresponds to John's research for proposals for GL 3.1, specifically 3.1.5. Readability formulas may help predict possible difficulties with associating written words with their correct pronunciation and are therefore useful tools in helping authors develop content that is easier for people with dyslexia to decode.
The Benefits section of "How to meet Gl 3.1.5" and should address the reviewer's comment. The term "reading disabilities" is an umbrella term used in the literature to cover a broad range of impairments, including but not limited to dyslexia .
The Benefits section for 3.1.1 is similar to (but shorter than) the material quoted from 3.1.5 but uses the term "learning disabilities" instead of "reading disabilities." We should choose one or the other for this specific context and use it consistently.
The other language the reviewer objects to no longer appears in the Guidelines document nor in the Benefits section for any SC in Understanding WCAG 2.0.
Close with changes: For the most part, the reviewer's comments have been addressed by edits. References to dyslexia in the Benefits sections of Understanding WCAG 2.0 now refer to dyslexia as involving difficulties in associating written text with appropriate sounds. There is no longer any reference to difficulty processing visual information.
However, we need to choose either the term "reading disabilities" or "learning disabilities" and use it consistently. Propose "Reading disabilities" since the Guideline says to "Ensure that text content is readable and understandable." May also want to include a definition to clarify our usage.
The reviewer says, "The real problem with acronyms and abbreviations is how the speech synthesizers speak the acronym, not so much how it is expanded." John's June proposal included the following proposal for a level 3 Success Criterion, "A mechanism is available for finding the correct pronunciation of any word whose pronunciation cannot be determined from context." This proposal was not accepted at the June face-to-face meeting because we determined that pronunciation may best be handled by a language-specific extension to WCAG 2.0.
It came up again at the October face-to-face and Gregg and Makoto have an action to investigate the most appropriate way to address (new SC? technique?).
Keep open - pronouncing abbreviations is addressed in the benefits for 3.1.4, however the larger pronunciation issue is open therefore keep this one open until resolved.
Issue: provides example for similar Japanese characters that look the same but mean different things. No longer have a SC related to marking up phrases for pronunciation nor about making text perceivable (which would fall under Principle 1 somewhere).
Thoughts: This seems most related to the language-specific extensions we've discussed or including it in a Guide somewhere.
Propose:
Issue: John's June proposal introduced Signed video as L3 requirement "Signed video is available for key pages or sections of pages." WCAG WG rejected the proposal at the 14 June 2005 face-to-face meeting and 23 June 2005 teleconference. At the 29 September 2005 telecon, John and I proposed the following addition to L3SC5: Signed video of concepts or processes that must be understood in order to use the content. This would have made it an "or" in a level 3 criterion. This proposal was rejected. At the 29 September 2005 telecon we resolved to include the proposed item as an advisory technique for 3.1.5.
Add as an advisory technology-independent technique then close the issue.