Re: German Translation WCAG 2.1 - Disapproval

Hi Gottfried,

I am in communications with W3C on how we might be able to address your 
concerns and provide some options. I’ll keep you and the list posted 
on these options.

I’m sure that we can reach a good compromise.

👋 Eric

On 24 Mar 2022, at 17:31, zimmermann@accesstechnologiesgroup.com wrote:

> Thank you, Eric, for your response.  However, I maintain my position 
> on the issues for the following reasons:
>
>
>
> Regarding Issue Translation of  
> <https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/63> "assistive 
> technology" #63:
>
> * You have not provided convincing rationale for using the German word 
> “Technik” rather than “Technologien”.
>
> Issue 2.1.2 No keyboard trap #64 
> <https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/64> :
>
> * It is not true that the English text is as unclear as the German 
> translation.  The English term “unmodified arrow or tab keys“ can 
> be generally understood on the background of the common term 
> „modifier keys” (e.g. see Wikipedia entry on “Modifier key” 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifier_key> ). But the German word 
> “nicht modifizierte Taste” does not have such a common 
> understanding and it is completely unclear what it means to a lay 
> person that is not deep into WCAG.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gottfried
>
>
>
> Von: Eric Eggert <mail@yatil.net>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 09:49
> An: zimmermann@accesstechnologiesgroup.com
> Cc: public-auth-trans-de@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: German Translation WCAG 2.1 - Disapproval
>
>
>
> Hi Gottfried,
>
> Here’s the rational from the translator’s views for these 
> non-implemented issues:
>
> The AGWG have, as originators of WCAG, made clear that consistency 
> over WCAG versions is important. This means for them that even wording 
> changes between different versions are impossible, with some very 
> minor exceptions (mostly editorial errata).
>
> * Issue Translation of
> < <https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/63> 
> https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/63> "assistive
> technology" #63
>
> * This goes back to a translation error of WCAG 2.0. I do not accept
> that we must carry over a wrong translation of "assistive technology" 
> into
> WCAG 2.1. The self-imposed restriction that the translation of 
> existing
> passages from WCAG 2.0 must not change is unnecessary and not helpful 
> for
> the subject matter.
>
> As translators and practitioners, we see a challenge for documentation 
> that currently refers to WCAG 2.0 wording in this context. Every piece 
> of advice would need to be updated to reflect the new wording, or it 
> would need to include both wordings.
>
> The translation of assistive technology as “assistierende 
> Techniken” was a WCAG 2.0 translation consensus reached as German 
> speaking countries have different names. The discussion only refers to 
> sources in Germany for the impetus of the change request where 
> “assistive Technologien” is prevalent.
>
> However, when looking in other German speaking countries, like Austria 
> and Switzerland, “assistierende Technologien” is very common:  
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22assistierende+technologien%22> 
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22assistierende+technologien%22
>
> In addition, as mentioned in the above linked thread, the term is 
> broader in WCAG and does not only focus on “Hilfsmittel” but also 
> user agent functionality that can be used to make the web accessible.
>
> In aggregate, and as no other party, especially from the affected 
> communities outside of Germany, raised or supported the issue, the 
> translators decided to keep the consensus from the WCAG 2.0 
> translation and hence the status quo.
>
> * Issue 2.1.2 No keyboard trap #64
> < <https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/64> 
> https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/64>
>
> * My proposal has not been accommodated, and there is no discussion or
> reason provided for that. Again, this is a translation error of WCAG 
> 2.0
> which should be corrected.
>
> The proposal has not been accommodated because it is a word-for-word 
> translation from the English source which is also ambiguous in that 
> regard.
>
> The proposed solution for the issue was to add a note to the WCAG 
> success criterion that would only exist in the translation.
>
> The translators are cautious to add interpretation to the translation, 
> and what “unmodified” means is not explained in WCAG or the 
> Understanding documents. We would encourage the AG Working Group to 
> clarify the use of “unmodified” keys in the Understanding document 
> for the SC 2.1.2.
>
> The proposed note names Control, Shift, Alt, and AltGr (the latter not 
> existing on most international and many non-Windows keyboards, which 
> probably would not make it accessibility supported) as examples for 
> “modifier keys”, but from the source material (WCAG), this is 
> unfortunately not clear.
>
> In light of all this, the translators decided to carry over the 
> uncertainty from the source document.
>
> (My apologies for not answering in the GitHub discussion earlier, I 
> was under the impression I had answered, but this must have slipped 
> through.)
>
> 👋 Eric
>
> On 23 Mar 2022, at 8:52, zimmermann@accesstechnologiesgroup.com 
> <mailto:zimmermann@accesstechnologiesgroup.com>  wrote:
>
> Dear W3C,
>
>
>
> this is a note regarding the proposed German translation of WCAG 2.1 
> at 
> https://outline-rocks.github.io/wcag/translations/CAT-WCAG21-DE-20211004/. 
>  I hereby disapprove this translation due to two issues that I have 
> raised and that were not sufficiently accommodated.
>
>
>
> The two issues were discussed in German and are documented on 
> https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions:
>
> * Issue Translation of  
> <https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/63> "assistive 
> technology" #63
>
> * This goes back to a translation error of WCAG 2.0.  I do not accept 
> that we must carry over a wrong translation of “assistive 
> technology” into WCAG 2.1. The self-imposed restriction that the 
> translation of existing passages from WCAG 2.0 must not change is 
> unnecessary and not helpful for the subject matter.
>
> * Issue 2.1.2 No keyboard trap #64 
> <https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/64>
>
> * My proposal has not been accommodated, and there is no discussion or 
> reason provided for that. Again, this is a translation error of WCAG 
> 2.0 which should be corrected.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gottfried Zimmermann
>
> Invited expert of W3C APA wg
>
>
>
> --
>
> outline Consulting
>
> Sandra Kallmeyer und Eric Eggert GbR
> Gutenbergstr. 12
> 57537 Wissen
> GERMANY
>
> USt-IdNr.: DE275406670
>
> info@outline.rocks <mailto:info@outline.rocks>
> www.outline.rocks <http://www.outline.rocks>
>
> Spielregeln
>  <http://outline.rocks/spielregeln.php> 
> http://outline.rocks/spielregeln.php



--

outline Consulting

Sandra Kallmeyer und Eric Eggert GbR
Gutenbergstr. 12
57537 Wissen
GERMANY

USt-IdNr.: DE275406670

info@outline.rocks
www.outline.rocks

Spielregeln
http://outline.rocks/spielregeln.php