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: Smith, Jim <smithjs@atos.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 22:03:41 +0000
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "Milliken, Neil" <neil.milliken@atos.net>, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
CC: "Thaddeus ." <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Message-ID: <26339A7215C6BA45B21EC42600C7F7A240D7CE4F@DEFTHW99EZ3MSX.ww931.my-it-solutions.net>
Interesting stuff – given that error messages, control labels and critical instructions will tend to be short collections of words, will this not make any measure of readability statistically unreliable?

From the reference below I couldn’t find any discussion on the minimum length of material required for a reading test, but that may be buried in the references contained or taken as understood by anyone working in the field.

Jim

From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 2:11 PM
To: EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; Milliken, Neil <neil.milliken@atos.net>; lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: Thaddeus . <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Subject: RE: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for WCAG 2.1

Useful sources – thanks EA.

From: EA Draffan [mailto:ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 07 February 2017 14:31
To: Milliken, Neil <neil.milliken@atos.net<mailto:neil.milliken@atos.net>>; lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
Cc: Thaddeus . <inclusivethinking@gmail.com<mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com>>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>; Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com<mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>>
Subject: RE: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for WCAG 2.1

I vote 3

Holiday reading or references!

Readability: The limitations of an approach through formulae (this paper has a definition of readability)
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/213296.pdf


Another very readable discussion about readability and the limitations of scales, but also measuring sentence length by number of words etc.
http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/Limitations.pdf


old one
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/15490/why-rf-fail.html?sequence=3




Best wishes
E.A.

Mrs E.A. Draffan
WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103
http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk<http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk/><http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%3e>
UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/



________________________________
From: Milliken, Neil [neil.milliken@atos.net<mailto:neil.milliken@atos.net>]
Sent: 06 February 2017 23:13
To: lisa.seeman
Cc: Thaddeus .; public-cognitive-a11y-tf; Jeanne Spellman
Subject: Re: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC proposals for WCAG 2.1

I vote 3


Kind regards,

Neil Milliken
Head of Accessibility & Digital Inclusion
Atos
M: 07812325386<tel:07812325386>
E: Neil.Milliken@atos.net<mailto:Neil.Milliken@atos.net><mailto:Neil.Milliken@atos.net><mailto:Neil.Milliken@atos.net%3e>
http://atos.net/iux

http://atos.net/accessibilityservices

@neilmilliken



On 6 Feb 2017, at 22:35, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com><mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>><mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com%3e%3e> wrote:

I am changing my vote to 3 as well.
The SC as it is incredibly easy to write testing tools for. there are a few open source language processing tools that you can use to count cluses actureltys. Testing against a word list is also something that exists already in restricted language tools and is very easy to program. It cant be that we need to have a worse SC and use archaic reading level tools because WCAG are to set in their ways to accept any new technology.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/><http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/%3e>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa><https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa%3e>




---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 21:55:36 +0200 Thaddeus .<inclusivethinking@gmail.com<mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com><mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com>><mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com%3e%3e> wrote ----

I vote 3

On Feb 6, 2017 11:08 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com><mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>><mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com%3e%3e> 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/><http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/%3e>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa><https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa%3e>




---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:00:24 +0200 Jeanne Spellman<jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com<mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com><mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>><mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com%3e%3e> 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]








Atos, Atos Consulting, Worldline and Canopy The Open Cloud Company are trading names used by the Atos group. The following trading entities are registered in England and Wales: Atos IT Services UK Limited (registered number 01245534), Atos Consulting Limited (registered number 04312380), Atos Worldline UK Limited (registered number 08514184) and Canopy The Open Cloud Company Limited (registration number 08011902). The registered office for each is at 4 Triton Square, Regent’s Place, London, NW1 3HG.The VAT No. for each is: GB232327983.

This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee, and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this e-mail in error, you are not authorised to copy, disclose, use or retain it. Please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your systems. As emails may be intercepted, amended or lost, they are not secure. Atos therefore can accept no liability for any errors or their content. Although Atos endeavours to maintain a virus-free network, we do not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and can accept no liability for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. The risks are deemed to be accepted by everyone who communicates with Atos by email.

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 22:04:29 UTC

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