we need to quantify what the issues can not be meet for plain language

Plain language and use on common words is a pillar for accessibility for coga. if we do not include it at all we have not fulfilled our charter in any meaningful way that  WCAG 2.1 will also incorporate updated Success Criteria related to content and digital publications accessed by people with low-vision and with cognitive disabilities. so we need to be very clear why we are not doing this and very clear that it can not be done.

Before we leave this one out, i think  we must have clear consistent on what criteria for getting into wcag is not met and give coga a good chance to answer it and only reject this if we are fully convinced and have fully documented why  one of our acceptance criteria can not be met.


looking at the survey responses about common words I found questions on "how" , but the straw poll indicated that this would not get though even if we have clear "how to meet this section"  have clear "how techniques" and how to test etc   (I also want to correct the minuets, I had asked for a straw poll  asking people if we had clear how to sections and clear techniques and worked on the wording is there any chance they can see it going though - I did not ask about the 1500 word limit, because that is only ONE option) 


The other issue raised in the survey was about the limit of 1500 words, but, as I clarified in my last email, that was only only way to meet the common terms item. 


Another concern was for what language  profession and time, but that is why we had the option of a word, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the concept in a public word frequency list for the identified context. (We all agree that we need to specify how to do this, but for now we were just focused on the SC wording, we also have definitions for  public word frequency list and  identified context which help define that - they may need tweeki g, but we first need to agree on the direction)


We have really tried to meet all the  concerns, and more work may be needed. But I think we all need to be on the same page on what criteria can not be met.




All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:52:34 +0300  White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 

     
  
     From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:35 PM
 
 
 
 
   we have at working draft semantics for personlization like coga-action and coga-easylang that would alow people to conform to the plain language proposal via personlization ( see https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics )
 
   
 
  I understood from this group that they do not want to rely on this for conformance, however with the plain language sc as written you can either change the text or use the personlization semantics.  In other words the free speach is not an issue
 [Jason] It remains an issue if you can’t express what you want to express at all within the restricted vocabulary. I don’t think the concern regarding free speech was so much about changing the default version of the content as it was a more fundamental point about not being able to (1) comply with a controlled/restricted vocabulary and (2) express what one wants to – even if the restrictions only operate with respect to labels, instructions, etc. Whether the “plain language” text is presented by default, embedded in metadata or provided as a link to a separate resource doesn’t address this issue.
  
 Those who expressed the concerns will doubtless correct me if I’m misinterpreting their point here.
  
 
 
 
 
 
  This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 
 Thank you for your compliance.