W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for WCAG 2.1

From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:16:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEsWMvSzKzZk4gyx9qNF1Tf3hmi43wTmoOGYqJhbVhesNcCMcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thaddeus ." <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>
Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
I'd be interested in some detail about why these new suggestions are each
felt to be better. What weakness are being addressed? That would offer a
learning opportunity and lead to option 4

4) Update current based on shared understanding and consensus

Otherwise I vote 3 given we have detailed back ground information, unless
it's felt to be simply a matter of wording



Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

On 6 February 2017 at 19:55, Thaddeus . <inclusivethinking@gmail.com> wrote:

> I vote 3
> On Feb 6, 2017 11:08 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> We had issues with reading level , for example the word "mode" is a lower
>> reading level than "hot or cold" . the lower reading level is much harder
>> to understand.
>> The reason to go with Jeanne's proposal is because wcag _might_ find it
>> more testable. This would only be, in my opinion, because they have not
>> bothered read the whole proposal and testability section  (or they do not
>> want new tools) Also i am not sure it is more testable in different
>> languages and that is essential for WCAG. Wordlists requiremnts however,
>> can work easily in any language and wordlists can be automatically
>> generated by parsing a few sites.
>>
>> I agree that the "unless..."  clause is only human testable but that it
>> very typical for wcag.
>>
>>
>> I want to suggest three options
>>
>> 1 -  we retract our current pull requests and put these in instead
>>
>> 2 - we go with the current pull requests. If they fail and the comments
>> are hard to address then we go with Jeanne's
>>
>> 3 -we go with the current pull requests. we can revisit this if needed
>>
>> My vote is 3, to go with the current wording and see what happens
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:00:24 +0200 *Jeanne
>> Spellman<jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com
>> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>>* wrote ----
>>
>> A group of us at The Paciello Group (TPG) have been meeting every week in
>> January to comment on the WCAG 2.1 proposals.  Because we test WCAG 2.0 all
>> day, every (business) day, we have a lot of experience with both the
>> language of WCAG and the testing of WCAG.  What we decided this week is
>> that we want to focus our efforts toward helping COGA TF draft success
>> criteria that will get into WCAG 2.1 and will accomplish most of what you
>> want -- even if it is phrased differently.
>>
>> We started with the proposals that we thought would be the least
>> controversial to the WCAG WG to include.  I looked at the Plain Language
>> proposals and did my best to look at the needs identified by COGA TF, and
>> craft language that I thought would be acceptable to the WCAG WG and be
>> included in the first draft version of WCAG 2.1.
>>
>> The wording is quite different, but in my opinion, addresses the needs
>> identified.  I chose reading level, because it is internationally
>> standardized, and there are automated tests already available.  When I look
>> at Technique  G153: Making the text easier to read
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G153.html , it covers most of the
>> items that the COGA TF identified.
>>
>> Issue 30 Proposal:
>>
>> Understandable Labels:  Navigation elements and form labels do not
>> require reading ability greater than primary education level.  (A)  [link
>> to WCAG’s definition of primary education level from UNESCO standard]
>>
>>
>> Issue 41:
>>
>> Understandable Instructions:  Headings, error messages and instructions
>> for completing tasks do not require reading ability greater than lower
>> secondary education level.  (AA)  [link to WCAG’s definition of lower
>> secondary level from UNESCO standard]
>>
>>
>> Delta 3.1.5 (rewrite of existing WCAG 3.1.5)
>>
>> Understandable Content: Blocks of text either:  (AAA)
>>
>> ·        have a reading level no more advanced than lower secondary
>> education, or
>>
>> ·        a version is provided that does not require reading ability
>> more advanced than lower secondary education. [links to WCAG’s
>> definitions of lower secondary education and blocks of text]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 6 February 2017 20:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:58 UTC