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

Re: might be last option for plain language

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 09:01:30 -0400
Cc: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E939DABD-A3A3-4C9C-BF9E-84B237E32590@umd.edu>
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
please redo the pages I cited in previous post (including ours) to show what you mean and demonstrate that it is possible

it is easy to assert these things - but not to do them. 

g 

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu




> On May 17, 2017, at 2:39 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> I think each issue can be worked out in the plain language, for example the wording seas "or or 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.." in other word , you can iether use the most commen `1500 words in a core vocabulary (easy to find out), or  the most-common form to refer to the concept 
> 
> It should be  possible to express a concept in a by using the most common form to refer to it. Do you disagree?
> 
> The option of using coga semantics means that it does not restrict your style, even on a label.
> 
> We also have an exception for special cases but we can also add an exception for names including the names of   product, deliverable, services  and trademarks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:52:34 +0300 White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 
>  
>   <>
> From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com <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 <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.
> 
> 
> 


Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 13:02:40 UTC

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