Re: LTO Submission of Intent: WCAG 2.1 translation to Russian

Hi Eugene,

Thanks for writing back. My apology for the late response due to my past 
weeks' vacation.

Hope the following info would be helpful to your questions.

For a country as large as Russia, we believe that there's a considerable 
number of organizations related to accessibility work. Meanwhile, a 
broader list of organizations is also expected to represent people with 
disabilities, covering at least: (a) industry sector, (b) public bodies, 
(c) researchers, and (d) individual experts in accessibility. So yes, we 
hope to see more various members (organizations) in the translation 
group. The more relevant stakeholders get involved, the more accurate 
and universal the translation will be for local community.

It's a possibility that not all stakeholders do actual translation work, 
however, once a organization confirmed being part of the group, it's 
indeed expected that each stakeholder should read/review/comment from 
their professional perspectives and approve the translation eventually.

A few stakeholders may be "lost" along the way but it should really be 
only a clear minority, and no specific pattern (e.g., industry, 
research, etc.) in these missing stakeholders. We need to ensure that 
the remaining stakeholders are still representative of the community.

You are still welcome to apply whenever suitable with a broader set of 

Best Regards,

On 1/20/20 9:07 PM, Information for All / IAS wrote:
> Dear Xueyuan,
> Thank you for explaining W3C position on authorized translations. May 
> I ask you to clarify the concept of ‘adequately represents the broad 
> local community’? Should we collect other 10-20-30 members of the 
> translation group who would trade their names for good intention and 
> promise to not force them for real work toward translation? ;-)
> May I remind you the situation with WCAG 2. translation to Russian:
>> Translation was initially presented to 25 experts;
>> 3 experts leaved the experts group before the end of the revision 
>> (Aksenova, Virin, Novikov)
>> Number of experts who accepted the documents without comments - 9;
>> Number of experts who gave their comments during both stages - 13;
> I wondered how it was possible to have no comments when other members 
> had tenths to thousands. So I suppose the actual number of 
> participants was 13 while the rest of them just put their signature 
> under the text.
> Since then we have lost another 5 members of that group while their 
> projects seems to be closed or abandoned:
> 1.
> 2. /
> 3. Club of friends of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
> Disabilities
> 4.
> 5.
> Nowadays we have 10 persons/institutions that wish to work on 
> translation and another ~10 were personally invited and get 
> invitation. To my mind, it’s enough to have different points of view 
> on translation, but I’m surely open for discussion.
> Sincerely,
> Eugene

Received on Friday, 7 February 2020 10:53:49 UTC