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> "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

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>
>
> * 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 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
www.outline.rocks

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