W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Usefulness of language annotations

From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:41:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJ0g8QSLsQhGSTgf2hBjtL04o+PDe-upTEn2YGTtGkKft3xzPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de>
Cc: W3C WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> For which reason(s) does this apply to @lang and not to text
> alternatives, forms, tables, correct choice of heading levels, etc, etc?
> Why single out @lang?

As Jared tried to read this in the questions, too [1]: @lang is an
entirely different matter and nowhere comparable to @alt &c. Instead,
requiring to mark up changes in language may be likened to requiring
to provide definitions for every word. (Both knowledge of language and
definitions are useful but, per definitionem, no accessibility
problems.)

It’s unfortunate that all feedback so far has been… reflexive, and
then evasive. I believe there are many problems with that, if not to
use discussions to clarify guidelines. I don’t follow the list as
closely anymore, however, to tell whether this is incidental or a
fundamental problem.

Then, I’ve reviewed the case and decided to drop the practice of
marking up changes in language. I’m certain enough to say that it is
an unrealistic and expensive demand that should be made a software
responsibility. It’s not a problem, especially not an accessibility
one, and overall, software will do better detecting changes than
humans marking them up. For the moment I will recommend other
professionals to at least be critical of current guidelines.


[1] http://meiert.com/en/blog/20140825/html-and-language/#comment-239194

-- 
Jens O. Meiert
http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 14:12:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:16 UTC