W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > March 2019

Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:36:28 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3a40b3d7-3391-3064-422f-ad5ead6ba6c6@w3.org>
And I want to eat my “Desert” after my main course!

Seriously, some tools like Word's grammar checker do look for a few 
common homonyms (homophones in US).

Interestingly "Desert" is not listed on the Wikipedia page for homonyms :)

Steve


On 11/03/2019 23:49, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I agree that it probably won’t come up. From looking at the proposed 
> SCs, the COGA ones are all interface / task-oriented SCs, so I don’t 
> think this will come up for 2.2 anyway.
> 
> As a side note:
> 
> One source of my concern is from experience of testing at AAA, and SC 
> such as:
> 
> 3.1.6 pronunciation, where you have to read every word on the page and 
> work out whether it could be mis-understood as another word. (E.g. is 
> “Desert” used as “abandon” or “arid region”?)
> 
> It is **really** easy to miss instances, and very hugely time consuming 
> to test, especially if you are doing it to the side of your day job 
> (like most of the people I train). If there were a tool that could 
> highlight those words from a set list, that would be a massive 
> improvement. That is the type of thing that could pull the requirement 
> up a level as it would be more feasible and applicable across scenarios.
> 
> NB: I’m not assuming that SC is something that helps folk with 
> neuro-cognitive issues, it is just an example where available tools 
> would make a difference.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Alastair
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2019 11:36:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:02 UTC