Re: agenda+ Diacritics in WCAG

Hello everybody,

On 2026-04-08 20:08, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 03:56, Addison Phillips <addisoni18n@gmail.com> 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).

Exactly. I think many on this list get somewhat confused because of the 
word 'diacritics'. My assumption would be that they were looking at a 
phenomenon (languages that in their written form have more or less 
information, where the form with less information is the 'usual' form, 
but the form with more information is helpful in an accessibility 
context because it makes it easier for some people to read). The actual 
graphical expression of the information was mostly in form of additional 
marks, and they then called that 'diacritics' because that's a word they 
were familiar with.

Examples that come to my mind that haven't yet been mentioned:
- Stress marks in Russian (used for learners who don't know on which 
syllable the stress is, potentially helpful in an accessibility context).
- Lengthening marks in Japanese written in Latin (e.g. Taro Sato vs. 
Tarō Satō), similar to Hawai'ian. They may help foreigners with a bit of 
knowledge of Japanese.
- Ruby in Japanese (these are extremely far from diacritics,... but 
nevertheless can be very helpful in accessibility contexts)

So the main point in the common discussion should be to look at the 
purpose. Terminology should to be cleaned up, but that should be secondary.


> I'd assume they are referring to languages that normally aren't marked, but
> can be marked for pedagogical reasons or to add clarity. Arabic, Lithuanian
> and a range of African languages come to mind.
> 
> There are no lists of such languages. It would also have to be orthography
> specific not just language specific.
> 
> The only language independent way of achieving this that would also work
> with any tech stack would be having both versions of the text stored and
> switching between them.

Fully agree.

Regards,    Martin.

>> 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?
>>>
>> --
>> Internationalization is not a feature.
>> It is an architecture.

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2026 23:22:35 UTC