- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:51:13 -0800
- To: "Geert Freyhoff" <G.Freyhoff@inclusion-europe.org>
- Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
The working group agrees that many documents can be translated into easy to read language. The problem is that to be at level A or AA, it would have to be possible with all pages. And the working group does not believe that this is possible. Regards, Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact On behalf of the WCAG Working Group > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 2: Include criterion 3.1.5 in levels A and AA > Source: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0302. > html > (Issue ID: 2157) > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > To be able to access content in easy-to-understand language is of > paramount importance for people with cognitive disabilities. It is in > fact the core success criterion for this group of disabled people that > must be met by all public websites. Therefore, it must be associated > with level A and not only with level AAA. > > Proposed Change: > Include success criterion 3.1.5. also in levels A and AA. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Because of the tighter limits that this success criterion places on > content, we feel it is appropriate at level AAA. Many legal documents > cannot have alternative or supplemental content, and cannot be expressed > in language at the primary level. > > ----------------------------------------------- > INCLUSION EUROPE COMMENT: > ----------------------------------------------- > > This answer from the Working Group shows the limited knowledge and > experience in the Working Group about accessibility issues for people > with intellectual disabilities. There are many examples of legal > documents that have been translated into easy-to-read format, meaning in > an alternative content expressed in a language that does not require > more than primary level education to be understood. > > Out of many examples of legal texts that were provided in alternative > easy-to-read format, we want to highlight just the following: the > Austrian government has asked and paid for the translation of new laws > in a way that is accessible for people with intellectual disabilities. > The results are available at: > http://www.atempo.at/index.php?node=606&id=520&size=2&lang=1& > http://www.atempo.at/index.php?node=599&id=511&size=2&lang=1& > http://www.atempo.at/index.php?node=510&id=435&size=2&lang=1& > > Additional examples include the UN Convention on the Rights of People > with Disabilities, the UN Standard Rules for the Equalization of > Opportunities for People with Disabilities, the European Commission > Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, as well as > many national laws and policies in many European countries. > > Beyond legal texts, people with intellectual disabilities are interested > in the same things than other adults: music, motorbikes, soccer, > dancing, and of course rights, only to name a few. It is therefore clear > discrimination when authors provide information requiring a higher > degree of understanding than primary level education and when they do > not provide alternative content. > > Inclusion Europe therefore points out that keeping this criterion at the > AAA level is a clear case of indirect, i.e. structural, discrimination. >
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 23:51:34 UTC