- From: Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 06:35:03 -0800
- To: Julie Rawe <jrawe@understood.org>
- Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJO5HusWg_8dxYZGr3bcEcMXFt6s487YtL_rVe71T-h+PeX9bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Julie and COGA TF, Lisa and I raised concerns with AGWG and APA chairs that a Plain Language conversation was happening without involving COGA, and we received clarity that this conversation *does not, in fact, have to do with writing Plain Language protocols* in Silver. This was a misunderstanding. What this conversation is really about is using the existing work on plainlanguage.gov as an example of *what a protocol *might look like. At this moment, we can remove this from our list of concerns. Warmly, Rain On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:54 AM Julie Rawe <jrawe@understood.org> wrote: > Hi, folks, W3C's Protocols subgroup is meeting tomorrow at 9am Boston > time. The agenda seems highly relevant to COGA's work in general and to > Clear Language in particular. > > Scroll down for the agenda and log-in info and for a long but fascinating > message from John Foliot, who: > > - Takes a close look at the guidelines from plainlanguage.gov > - Raises concerns about trying to "incorporate user needs into our > spec that cannot be 'evaluated' to true or false, because fundamentally the > answers would always be subjective." > - Suggests a way for W3C protocols to focus on inputs rather than > outputs > > It sounds like tomorrow's meeting will be really interesting. I'm planning > to join for the first half-hour but have to hop off for another meeting. > > Thanks, > Julie > > -- > > Julie Rawe > > Special Projects Editor, Editorial Content, Understood > > E: jrawe@understood.org > > Pronounced Joo-lee Raw (like 'uncooked') > > She | her > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> > Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Protocols] Agenda for March 4th, 2022 > To: Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com> > Cc: public-silver@w3.org <public-silver@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org < > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > > > Hi Chuck and team, > > As I slowly resurface, I wanted to note that I am personally struggling > with this approach. Apologies in advance for the longish response, but as I > am unable to participate in any other way at this time, I wanted to get my > thoughts out there. > > One of the goals of 'Protocols' (in my mind) was to incorporate user needs > into our spec that cannot be 'evaluated' to true or false, because > fundamentally the answers would always be subjective. Per your agenda > recommendation, let's look at plainlanguage.gov (which is an example I > have always thought of as meeting the broad definition of 'Protocol') > > As I read that document, I note the following under the Guideline heading > of "Write for your audience" > <https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/audience/>, where it > explicitly states, > > "*Use language your audience understands and feels comfortable with. Take > your audience’s current level of knowledge into account. Don’t write for an > 8th-grade class if your audience is composed of PhD candidates, small > business owners, working parents, or immigrants. Only write for 8th graders > if your audience is, in fact, an 8th-grade class.*" > > > Now, using just that statement, let's apply it to your request: > > > Propose a way to evaluate (pass/fail): > > i. Whether the protocol was done > > ii. How well the protocol was followed > > iii. The quality of the results > > To answer the first bullet point, "Whether the protocol was done" first > requires that a third-party evaluator knows who the audience is, and what > their knowledge and reading-skills are. It is unclear to me today how a > third-party evaluator could truthfully know the answer to that question - > there may be times when it is more obvious (a treatise on Nuclear Physics > is likely not targeted to 8th Graders), but what for example is the > intended reading level of wikipedia? Facebook or twitter? The W3C website, > or educational institutions or government agencies? Banking and Insurance > sites? Why, and says who? What of sites like https://www.hhs.gov, which > has content targeted to both the broader population (especially in the > context of COVID information), but also content intended for a very > specific and highly educated audience (doctors) that requires a specialized > level of skill and experience? The applicability of "Plain Language" there > will vary from page-to-page based on topic and intended audience, but how > would that be evaluated or reported more broadly? > > But let's say that somehow the site owner explicitly claims that their > entire site has been authored to a Grade 8 Reading level. > > Putting aside the fact that COGA has consistently asserted that Reading > Levels (Flesch–Kincaid, FOG/Gunning index, etc.) do not solve their needs, > which (if any) of those existing test mechanisms is the right one to > evaluate whether the content has been authored to the appropriate reading > level? Does the use of multi-syllabic words (one of the things that will > increase the reading level in Flesch–Kincaid) truly make a document harder > to read? Additionally, Flesch–Kincaid is exclusively intended for English - > it does not work on, say, French or Spanish content, never-mind languages > such as Hebrew (R-to-L reading order), or any of the CJK languages > (Chinese/Japanese/Korean), so what tools or mechanisms would be used to > address internationalization issues? > > Next, measuring "How well the protocol was followed", which is another > subjective determination. > Given that the Guideline requirement is "*Use language your audience > understands and feels comfortable with." - *that again is impossible > to measure. For example, the statement *"9 out of 10 users can understand > this sentence"* would likely be very comfortable for a typical Grade 8 > student, but if that student is impacted by dyscalculia issues, that > sentence would probably be extremely uncomfortable for them, due to the use > of numbers. Changing "9" to "nine" may help some of those users, but not > all (if I am to fully understand the impact of dyscalculia > <https://www.dyscalculia.org>on individual users). Measuring comfort is > subjective and individual in nature, and it cannot be scaled in any way > that I can think of. > > Based on the above, I would then have to fundamentally question bullet 3 > "The quality of the results", simply because my reading comfort level will > be different than yours, or potentially anyone else reading this email. > > > Earlier, one of the key points that I thought the group had agreed-to (Jan. > 7th > <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#7_January_2022>) > was that Protocols measured inputs, not outputs - which was (I felt) close > enough. The goal there would be to look for evidence (I continue to propose > formal assertions) that a protocol has been consulted and applied as > intended. > > Plainlanguage.gov Guidelines in-and-of-themselves cannot be measured for > successful outcomes, as those outcomes are too varied and too contextual. > But documented evidence that the protocol is being consistently referenced > as content is being authored, or that the editorial staff have been trained > and apply the principles of Plain Language in their day-to-day activities, > are all indicators that when content is being written, it is being written > with informed guidance applied. It does not claim perfect, nor even > close-to-perfect, but it does claim "informed and earnestly applied", which > I will assert, is about as good as we can get. > > Thus the reason why I have always linked 'Assertions' to the larger > 'Protocols' discussion: when an entity makes a public statement, especially > one that is related to a highly regulated topic (like accessibility/human > rights considerations) there is an inherent level of risk: if you say it, > you better be able to prove it in court. > > And so for the conformance piece, I continually suggest that publicly > available conformance statements related to protocols used or applied, > coupled with the (legal) risk of failing to live up to your public > assertion, would be the mechanism for determining successful application > (i.e. Input, not output). It involves a level of trust - but I will also > assert no more or less trust than expecting that text alternatives are > accurate and useful (another subjective determination that will never be > able to be measured in a consistent and meaningful way). Broadly speaking > however, most experts could (I suggest) recognize whenever a protocol was > NOT applied, and so I thus conclude sites won't be making claims they > cannot back up in court. > > Specific to Plainlanguage.gov (and the US Federal requirement to use plain > language), this is essentially the approach the US is taking today. From > the Law and requirements <https://www.plainlanguage.gov/law/> section of > that site: > > *"By October 13, 2011, agencies must: ... Write annual compliance reports > and post these reports on its plain language web page."*That is the > accountability piece, and the model I continue to propose for all Protocols. > > What would an assertion look like in WCAG 3? I believe that is an > important part of the larger discussion which we've not yet discussed. > Working completely off the top of my head however, I could envision > something like the following (this is all straw-man, and will need to be > refined if the idea is accepted): > > ******************** > > Protocol: > > > - Plain language > > Reference: > > > - https://plainlanguage.gov > > Effective dates: > > > - This claim is in effect between Jan 1, 2022 - Jan 1, 2023 > - (Previous claims can be found at: ___URL___) > > Claim: > > > - Content written for this site is authored for users with a Grade 8 > reading level or greater. > - Some users may still experience difficulties with some or all of the > content on this site. > > Steps Taken to Implement this Protocol: > > > - The principles of plainlanguage.gov have been incorporated into > the XYZ Widget Company's writing guide "The voice of the Consumer". > - Corporate Editorial staff have all taken professional > training/refresh learning exercises within the past 12 months. > - Training provided: The Essentials of Plain Language - a nine part > online training course that covers plain language principles and the Plain > Language Writing Act of 2010. ( > https://academy.govloop.com/watch/hDzHyqdB4T7K3fjbvuGk8B) > - Random editorial content is evaluated by the XYZ Widget Company's > Chief Accessibility Officer monthly to verify that the protocol is being > applied correctly. > > Date of this report: > > > - January 22, 2022 > > **************** > > Could this be gamed? Of course it could! > > Any and all of WCAG - even today - can be gamed by the content owners if > that is their goal. I could do a 20 screen, *subjective* analysis of pages > from a site today while studiously avoiding a single page with MathML, > because I already knew that the MathML on that site was not accessible, so > "don't ask, don't tell" ensures my score isn't "too low" because we simply > sidestepped the MathML... > > Additionally today, while not part of WCAG, the Section 508 VPAT templates > support the notion of content that "Partially Supports" with regard to WCAG > SC, but then leaves defining "partial" to anyone - so gaming the Rec, even > today, is very easy to do if that is your intention. While I absolutely > believe helping to define conformance is part of our remit, I also strongly > believe that enforcing compliance is outside of our deliverable today. > > JF > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:41 PM Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> The Protocols Subgroup will meet again this Friday, March 4th at 9:00 AM >> Boston Time (1400 UTC). >> >> >> The Zoom teleconference data is provided at this link: >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34yacGIQO4g$> >> >> We will be on IRC using the W3C server at https://irc.w3.org >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/irc.w3.org/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34ybOl3ZsYw$>, >> in channel *#wcag3-protocols* >> >> These and additional details of our work, including minutes, current, >> and archived draft documents are available on our subgroup wiki page here: >> >> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34ya-s3KL6w$> >> >> *** Agenda *** >> >> agenda+ Develop a way for a lay-person to assess whether a protocol was >> followed >> >> >> >> 1. Pick 2-3 things that are likely protocols (Plainlanguage.gov, BBC >> style guidelines, ?) >> 2. Propose a way to evaluate (pass/fail): >> >> i. Whether >> the protocol was done >> >> ii. How >> well the protocol was followed >> >> iii. The >> quality of the results >> >> Regards, >> >> Charles Adams >> > > > -- > *John Foliot* | > Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility | > W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor | > > "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - > Pascal "links go places, buttons do things" > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2022 14:35:54 UTC