Re: German Translation WCAG 2.1 - Disapproval

Am 24.03.22 um 10:23 schrieb Eric Eggert:
> Errata can be fixed in translations and we have done so for WCAG 2.1 
> (like the German WCAG 2.0 translation did for WCAG 2.0).

That's a good new developement.

>     If you follow this link
>     https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#translate
>     <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#translate>
> This is about annotations for specifications, not necessarily about 
> Authorized Translations.

The rules apply for translations of specifications. As long as the 
Authorized Translation process does not forbid the use, an Authorized 
Translation should fall under the same rules.


> I found this translation of HTML4.01 which is *not* Authorized, and also 
> not a finalized document:
> http://www.edition-w3.de/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/ 
> <http://www.edition-w3.de/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/>

The remark in the document that it is not finalized is a political 
statement, it was published in a book and the politics of the publishing 
company demanded that only the book was "the real thing".
The translation was created in close collaboration with the German W3C 
office and other W3C members. They approved the comments/annotations.


>     I have seen that approach, imho, a good way to list the comments in
>     the document. But keeping the comments in place were
>     misunderstandings could occur is more helpful than only showing
>     these "Anmerkungen" at the bottom. Readers search for specific
>     sections, read them and leave. So the "Anmerkungen" will not be read
>     in most cases.

> It might be a better way, but it also adds interpretation to the 
> specification that is not in the original. I would rather press for 
> clarifications in the original.

A clarification in the original is definitely the best way in a lot of 
cases.
On the other hand the Authorized Translation has the advantage of many 
eyes being able find a good consensus for a comment that does not add 
interpretation, but clarification.
There is no harm in using one term in the translation and adding a 
comment about other terms that are used commonly.
The suggestion of Mr. Zimmermann
https://github.com/outline-rocks/wcag/discussions/64
about a comment regarding "no keyboard trap" would help readers to 
understand the issue.


> Skimming several WCAG 2.1 translations, I could not find translator 
> notes in any of them. https://www.w3.org/Translations/#s-WCAG21 
> <https://www.w3.org/Translations/#s-WCAG21>

That might mean they did not use all tools at hand to help their readers 
understand. Especially a WCAG translation should use all means to help 
their users understand. Just because something wasn't done before 
doesn't mean it's wrong.


> I can reach out to my contacts at W3C and see if there is a way.

That would be a good idea, maybe Ivan Herman could help out to clarify 
if these comments are suitable for an Authorized Translation. He was 
always the best contact to ask for any technical question.

STS

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2022 10:25:19 UTC