W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: Comments on "Use Cases & Exploratory Approaches for Ruby Markup"

From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:24:13 +0900
Message-ID: <CALvn5ECkdbai1WKFvFsyFNhuPPj=Cyoc+Ph9aNpA-c3X8ya=PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
2020年1月21日(火) 14:34 Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>:

> Hello Makoto,
> On 21/01/2020 14:13, MURATA Makoto wrote:
> > I am puzzled by 2.1 Accessibility use case in
> > "Use Cases & Exploratory Approaches for Ruby Markup".
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/ruby-use-cases/#accessibility
> >
> > First, please provide a link to the research by the
> > Japanese government.
> >
> > Second, as far as I know, some dyslexic people have
> > problems with hiragana and ruby.  They can read
> > kanji.  I thus just cannot believe the content of this
> > subsection.
> I'm sure that there are dyslexic people who have problems with hiragana,
> but can read kanji. But I'm also sure that there are dyslexic people who
> have problems reading kanji but have no (or less) problems reading
> hiragana.
> It would be good to have references for both cases. Can you provide a
> reference for your case?

I have heard of anecdotes, but I cannot think of any
references.   I will try, but I cannot promise anything.

I have spoken with two dyslexic guys, who have problems
with hiragana.  I have also heard that some dyslexic guys
have problems with kanji.

> Third, low-vision is completely ignored.
> Yes, low vision (an optical problem) is not the same as difficulty with
> visual recognition. I guess low vision would in general support
> hiragana, although there may be exceptions for simple kanji or kanji
> with otherwise easily recognizable features.

I am going to speak with an expert in this area.soon.

> Anyway, I think the conclusion of section 2.1 (direct access to ruby
> base is needed) is not wrong, it may just be incomplete. If you can
> provide an additional conclusion, that would be great.

I think that 2.1 is biased and the lack of a reference to the
JP government research is problematic.


> Regards,    Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 06:24:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 21 January 2020 06:24:56 UTC