W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: [WebAIM]: a translation question ...

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:47:06 -0800
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Chris Harpin'" <chris@castus.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'WebAIM Discussion List'" <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>
Message-ID: <104e01c70e6f$009ac450$928f40ab@Piglet>

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:54:16 +0100, Chris Harpin <chris@castus.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> ... if a client expects their
>> site to be to a certain accessible standard but then plans to use
>> automated translation software to produce in 7 additional languages.
>> Would I be correct in referring to the WCAG pointing out that this
>> action is highly likely to reduce the accessibility of the site for
>> non English speaking users?
> I would think this is blindingly obvious, but yes, you might need to
> point it out. If your language usage is excellent, and you have an
> excellent translation system you understand very well, you might not
> have a problem in practice. Although as someone reasonably competent
> in the relevant areas I have never seen anything actually work out
> like that and would bet a large sum against any real scenario turning
> out problem-free. 
> cheers
> Chaals

Yes, I'd take a piece of that action as well.  

I have dealt in the past with bilingual issues (English / French) and can
state categorically that, even though the mainstream spoken French of Quebec
is littered with all forms of colloquialisms and plain bad Anglicism's, when
it comes to the written word the requirement for syntactically and
grammatically perfect French is near obsessive.  One problem however is that
even if you get two "official" translators in the same room often they can
barely agree between themselves.

I wish you luck.

Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 19:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:35 UTC