Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.

> But simple words in "instructions, labels, navigational elements, and
error messages which require a response to continue", would help us all!

Hi EA,

I couldn't agree more, which is why I am 'active' in this discussion. Yes,
I am pushing hard for a real, measurable SC that we can advance that
supports this need, which means I am also pushing back hard on vagaries and
'holes' that I am seeing now.

I know I ask hard questions, and it may seem I am resisting this SC, but
that is far from the case. If we collectively cannot answer the questions I
am raising now, internally among our peers, then what will happen when we
go out for wider review to non-experts?

JF

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think the idea of an easy-to-read or coga-easylang tag is the best
> option as there are many languages that do not have large word frequency
> lists and they are all very dependent on the era in which they were
> collected and the setting as Gregg suggested.  But simple words in
> "instructions, labels, navigational elements, and error messages which
> require a response to continue", would help us all!
>
> 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/>
> UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Foliot [john.foliot@deque.com]
> Sent: 20 February 2017 16:06
> To: Michael Gower
> Cc: lisa.seeman; Gregg C Vanderheiden; public-cognitive-a11y-tf; GLWAI
> Guidelines WG org
> Subject: Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
>
> > What happens with multi-language pages - is it 1500 words per language
> present?
>
> I continue to have serious reservations here around internationalization:
> this proposed SC currently feels very "western-centric" in its approach.
>
> Mike Pluke previously noted 5 languages (English, French, German, Italian
> and Spanish), but what of other languages? (and which "Spanish"?) What of
> Asian-based languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.) or Russian, Arabic
> or Hebrew languages (to name a few others)? How does this proposed SC scale
> there?
>
> As others have noted as well, which 1500 words (or phrases) are we using
> as *The Standard*? Is the intent to leave that list undefined at this time?
> Why?
>
> What happens when variants of a language 'conflict'? (For example, in
> North America a car has a "trunk" and runs on "gas", while in the UK an
> automobile has a "boot" and runs on "petrol".. which of those words makes
> the 1500-word list? The US version, the UK version, both, or neither?)
>
> My fear is that in an effort to be effective here, we are also being
> overly prescriptive. Additionally, while I look forward to future
> technologies assisting us with this need, reliance on them for the proposed
> SC is counter to how we should be writing SC - as Gregg notes both members
> of this WG as well as non-experts need to be able to use our emergent WCAG
> 2.1 to actually test WCAG 2.1 in a measurable and repeatable fashion today.
>
> We need to be standardizing Requirements and Success Criteria, not
> specific solutions attached to hard-to-define variables.
>
> JF
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<
> mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
> Although the issue was closed in github, I've put more comments on this
> topic there since the context is clearer and discussion has been ongoing
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
> voice: (250) 220-1146<tel:(250)%20220-1146> * cel: (250) 661-0098<tel:(250)%20661-0098>
> *  fax: (250) 220-8034<tel:(250)%20220-8034>
>
>
>
> From:        "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:l
> isa.seeman@zoho.com>>
> To:        Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu
> >>
> Cc:        "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
> <mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Date:        2017-02-20 05:48 AM
> Subject:        Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Thank you Gregg. I think we are getting closer
>
> Note that the Sc is only for instructions, labels, navigational elements,
> and error messages which require a response to continue.
>
> SO there is no need to build a whole website along these lines. (That
> would only be a AAA conformance level)
>
>  Also if  you can comply by using a title tag or coga-easylang, will make
> it much easier and less restrictive
>
> I agree we will need a better term or clear definition of current context.
> hopefully then we will get there.
>
> Any suggestions for reworking the current context part?
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<
> https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 19:40:13 +0200 Gregg C Vanderheiden<
> greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>>wrote ----
>
>   *   Simple, clear, and common words:Use the the most common 1500 words
> or phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the are
> most-common form to refer to the concept in the current context.
>
>
> This is a very interesting definition.  By adding context — it makes
> content self adjust.   For example — a physics site could have physics
> terms on it - which would clearly not be plain language.
>
> My only concern as an author would be that several key things are not
> defined.
>
> 1)  what does “current context” mean.      If my website is the current
> context — it means everything passes because those are the terms in my
> context.    If the context is ‘science websites’  then I do not know what
> the most common terms are for them — nor do I know what the definition of
> ‘science website’ is.   (That is — if you define current context as being X
> context  then  X needs to be defined — and I need to know what the common
> words are for that context.
>
> 2) the most common 1500 words includes lots of prepositions, and articles
> (Most or all of them)  but only a small percentage of nouns.    Very hard
> to write a website with only the most common 1500 words.    (I did word
> frequency studies in my earlier years)
>
>
> I think the approach is clever — but still leads to an untestable SC since
> there is no way for the author  (or for testers) to know what “current
> context” means.         (and you can’t write WCAG with the most common 1500
> words)
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2017, at 3:33 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:l
> isa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks
>
> Continuing the conversation on simple language, to address concern with
> testability (as user testing is not acceptable)  I want to suggest the
> following change to the clause on common words:
>
> Change:
>
>   *   Simple, clear, and common words:Use words or phrases that are
> most-frequently used for the current context, unless it will result in a
> loss of meaning or clarity. This includes not using abbreviations, words,
> or phrases, unless they are the common form to refer to concepts for
> beginners. Where word frequencies are known for the context, they can be
> used.
>
> to:
>   *   Simple, clear, and common words:Use the the most common 1500 words
> or phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the are
> most-common form to refer to the concept in the current context.
>
>
> The scope is instructions, labels, navigational elements, and error
> messages which require a response to continue.
>
>  Technique would include:
>      *   Using a title tag to provide a simple language equivalent
>      *   Using the coga-easylang attribute (prefered)
>      *   Providing extra text via personalization semantics.
>      *   Using simple words
> Technology support includes: word frequency generator for a given context,
> (reads the URI's list and generates a word frequency list), existing word
> frequency lists, checker to test that words are in the most
>
> There are also a list of exceptions that is quite long - issues 30 - and
> we are proposing to add a exception for long instructions (as per previous
> email) We could add an exception for user testing, but amazingly that is
> controversial.
>
> The thinking is: the most common 1500 words is really trivial for testing
> tools to find and generate a warning. However using the most comment form
> to refer to something in the current context will, in this scope , take
> care of  the clarity issue and is also  testable with the tools above.
>
> please do not bring up issues that are addressed in the exceptions or are
> out of the scope.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<
> https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion