language step by step: - was Re: might be last option for plain language

Thanks for being frank here.

I must say I don't realy understand what you are suggesting but maybe the important point is you are not sure what this is about.


Maybe we could have a call after the WCAG call on Tuesday for thoughs who are interested were we go though what would be involved step by step.
 
We would not discuss wording or inclusion but just g over what it would involve.
 
We could then decide if the dircetion os OK before we get caught up on the wording

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 18 May 2017 16:48:09 +0300 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

Hi All,


At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still continue to struggle with *WHAT* we're supposed to do with the word list. 


Currently the draft states (in part):

Provide words or phrases from a public core vocabulary; or the most common 1500 words or phrases (including word roots); 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.
(https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-minimum_ISSUE-30/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-minimum.html)


Now, I'll use *that* actual URL/page for my example. After grabbing *every* word on that page, I note there are 99 unique terms being used. I have provided those terms in the enclosed list (attachment: wordlist.xslt).



By my reading of the current SC wording, my mailing of that excel spreadsheet that is all "the common words" for that page to this Group mailing list, I have technically "provided it" - at least to this list. 

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, have I now met this SC? By a literal reading and interpretation, I will argue yes (and so you  just KNOW others are going to do something similar).

Until such time as there is a concrete mechanism for "providing" that is standardized and supported by tools, I do not see how this SC is useful for much of anything practical. And while I remain hopeful for future technologies and W3C specs to help address the core issue here, future technologies and W3C specs are still in the "flying car" category for me today.


This is not to say that I do not understand what is being sought here, only that currently this is quite immature in it's technical merit, as well is incomplete and confusing in it's current draft language, and I anticipate a ton of push-back on this as written today.


JF








On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
  
  
    I really don't see any prospect of that the word lists that you produce will achieve the level of universal acceptance that would be necessary for them to be adopted as the lists to which all websites must conform to meet WCAG 2.1. 
 
 
 Some proposed European ICT terminology work will be trying to get acceptance for some default terms for common ICT functionality (in a subset of European languages), but this will only produce guidance. Any company that fails to fully adopt the terminology will not be penalized in the same that they would if they failed to meet WCAG 2.1.
 
 
 Best Regards 
 
 
 Mike Pluke
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:56 AM +0100, "lisa.seeman"  <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
 
   
  
   I actually offered to do a few pages if the group agree that they are interested in this direction   
 for a topic like web standards I would need to make a word list (one list is needed for a whole industry so it is not too bad)
 
 
 However, if we do agree to go in this direction, I will be happy to create word lists for ten verticals to start with (health, banking, technology, education...) and clear instructions on how to do it. 
 
 All the best
 
 Lisa Seeman
 
 LinkedIn, Twitter
 
 
 
 
  
 ---- On Wed, 17 May 2017 16:01:30 +0300 Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote ---- 
 
  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, 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.
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 










-- 
John Foliot


Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

john.foliot@deque.com



Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion