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

Many of the formulas for ease of reading in English (e.g. 
Flesch-Kincaid) require samples of 100-150 words.  That won't work for 
labels and menus.   The Dale-Chall formula uses a list of 3000 common 
words which could address the labels and menus. We wouldn't be able to 
require that specific formula (since it needs to be applicable 
internationally) although we could reference it in a Technique.

Here is a link to the Dale Chall word list.  While I didn't spend a lot 
of time looking at terms, I can confirm that it has "home", "about", 
"shopping", and "cart".  ;)
http://www.readabilityformulas.com/articles/dale-chall-readability-word-list.php 


I hope this helps.  If AGWG doesn't accept the Plain Language proposals, 
then I can work with Jim to either:

* work out some of the flaws in the reading level proposals; or
* figure out what parts of the existing list do match the WCAG SC 
requirements, and draft an SC with a more limited scope.

Hopefully, AGWG will agree to the existing proposal.  I would love to be 
wrong.  :)


On 2/8/2017 6:41 PM, Michael Pluke wrote:
>
> We certainly hope that instructions will be short! So I think that you 
> have raised a very important point about whether there can be useful 
> measurement of reading level on such short texts.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Smith, Jim [mailto:smithjs@atos.net]
> *Sent:* 08 February 2017 22:04
> *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>
> *Subject:* RE: Proposals for revision of the Plain Language SC 
> proposals for WCAG 2.1
>
> 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 <mailto:ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>; 
> 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
>
> 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.
>