Re: agenda+ Diacritics in WCAG

Indeed. I have invited them to attend our telecon to share what they are 
actually trying to achieve.

Thanks,

Fuqiao

On 2026-04-07 01:55, Addison Phillips wrote:
> It would be useful to know what they are actually trying to achieve. 
> Sometimes "removing diacritics" is a naive thing that (for example) 
> English speakers try to do (because, generally speaking, they are 
> affectations in English).
> 
> The meaning of "diacritic" itself is complex. Some diacritics alter or 
> hint the pronunciation of the base letter. Other diacritics are used to 
> form an entirely different letter. Diacritics are not just used with 
> the Latin script. There is also the tendency to confuse "combining 
> mark" with "diacritic". Without knowing what or why, it's difficult to 
> make progress--and there might be better approaches than removing 
> information from the text.
> 
> Look forward to the conversation.
> 
> Addison
> 
> On 4/6/2026 5:39 AM, Fuqiao Xue wrote:
>> The WCAG 3 Text & Wording subgroup is defining use of diacritics for 
>> languages "where they are optional". Here's their current 
>> draft/working document for that provision:
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z_Xuava_GS-Fwfk4Hg8KYDr1WcjgcuswKmTELukzvwo/edit?usp=sharing 
>> They are asking us to help them on principles or practices that may 
>> guide this work.
>> 
>> Some of the specific concerns are around:
>> 
>> 1. Identifying the applicable languages. Is there a list, or 
>> especially some programmatic standard to identify those?
>> 2. How assistive technology actually handles (or should handle!) cases 
>> like this. Is requiring the full-diacritic version the right answer?
>> 3. Expectations around burden/effort. It was brought up that having 
>> both versions in a datastore, and a user-visible toggle, is a big 
>> change.
>> 
>> They are happy to answer questions, or have a joint call to talk about 
>> this.
>> 
>> Any thoughts?
>>

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2026 01:46:46 UTC