Re: Plain Language

I hear you Alistair, and I agree in principle. However I suggest that the
guidelines must achieve something that other references do not. They must
be comprehensive without room for interpretation or they aren’t definitive.

Resources like Dey’s have the luxury of niche specificity, latitude, and
are also often accompanied with training.

With a thorough source like WCAG specialists like Dey can extract relevant
directives for their niche - editors in her case.

Anyways, just a thought.

Cheers

Gerry Neustatl
Accessibility Lead
Australian Broadcasting Coeporation

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 18:55, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> *From: *"Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)"
>
> [snipped]
>
> > The interesting / compelling thing is that people keep doing what we
> have tasked ourselves to do – convey accessibility guidelines in plain and
> simple language. While I know this is obvious, the next compelling point is
> that *these authors* who have already done the work *should be invited to
> contribute* to prototypes that can be tested.
>
>
>
> That’s a good point, and there is a closely related point I hope does not
> get missed:
>
>
>
> For many guidelines a plain-English & concise guideline will not provide
> the necessary accuracy for developers and policy/legal usage.
>
>
>
> There is one of those triangles going on, a web-accessibility guideline
> can be:
>
>    - Easy to understand
>    - Concise
>    - Accurate & testable.
>
>
>
> Pick any two. (By accurate, I mean it is clear what content it applies to..)
>
>
>
> Therefore we need to provide * both* plain English and technical version
> perhaps at different levels of the guidance.
>
>
>
> For any plain-English guideline you can point to it will have to make huge
> assumptions about when it is applicable, or spend a lot of words describing
> the situations.
>
>
>
> Do any of the prototypes tackle this aspect yet?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com / @alastc
>
>
>
>
>