RE: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 3: checkpoint 3.3

The problem with suggesting the use of a simple lexicon is that it just
isn't available for each language. For widely spoken languages like English
lexicons such as you describe are probably available. But for languages
that are spoken by only a small population, such as my native language
Dutch, I don't think such lexicons exist.

This means this test would be possible in some languages only. I think we
should try to give requirements and tests that are universally applicable.

Yvette Hoitink


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of lisa seeman
> Sent: woensdag 6 augustus 2003 6:46
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: 
> proposal 3: checkpoint 3.3
> 
> 
> 
> OK - I can't resist, I am going to get into the lexicon issue 
> 
> I am _not_ recommending controlled use of language or ILS or 
> concept mapping. 
> 
> What I had in mind was the following:
> I was looking for a  reasonably solid and testable way 
> requiring the use of "simple words".
> 
> I know Voice of America have a simple language broadcast (let 
> me know if I am getting anything wrong hear Avi). In this 
> broadcast they only use words from a short "simple language 
> dictionary/lexicon". This lexicon is available, and is short, 
> and they manage to describe all their news broadcasts using it.
> 
> My suggestion for the extended checkpoint - for people who 
> are claiming extra accessibility for cognitive disabilities - 
> is that they do something similar. They can use the VOA 
> lexicon or another similar lexicon that is designed for 
> simple language. But they can supplement it when necessary 
> with a lexicon of jargon, like a glossary. They should 
> provide a link to the glossary and dictionary used. In other 
> words, they have used simple words, and explained any words 
> that the audience may not be familiar with.
> 
> The phrase issue exists as do other issues with the 
> complexities of language, and words should be used as defined 
> in the lexicon. But this is a good start. 
> 
> To iterate the aim: Using simple terms and comment words is a 
> corner stone of writing easily understandable text - and that 
> is the aim of this checkpoint. We need to find a way to make 
> this requirement a, exist, b, be testable, and c, be flexible 
> so that most sites  that are interested in an extended 
> accessibility for cognitive disabilities can implement it. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Al Gilman
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:05 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 
> 3: checkpoint 3.3
> 
> 
> 
> At 02:21 AM 2003-08-03, lisa seeman wrote:
> >This was a lot of work...
> >
> >before folks jump on any wording issues or the details, 
> please, let us
> >get
> >a consensus on the concept -is this the way to go? is the 
> direction of
> the 
> >checkpoints a step forward? Also, please read the notes before
> commenting
> 
> There is a lot here.  I myself don't get just one concept 
> from it.  So I don't know if Gregg and Jason can ask the 
> question "is there consensus on the concept presented here?"
> 
> There are several concepts that I see afoot in this 
> discussion.  One key concept is that clarification will be 
> provided both by indirectly associated lexical information 
> and directly associated contextual information, with a 
> preference for the former where applicable. Consider the 
> following conceptual policy:
> 
> Provide lexical information offline (by a reference in the 
> context to dictionary-like resources) refined where needed by 
> more specific contextual information by inline markup or annotations.
> 
> Explanation:
> 
> We can draw a distinction between clarifying information that 
> applies broadly to many uses of a word, and information that 
> is specific to how a term is used in one instance of the 
> word.  Terms associated with the first class of clarifying 
> information include "lexicon, dictionary, glossary, idiom, 
> idee_fixe, terminology, technical term, Term of Art, 
> jargon,..."  For this note I am going to use 'lexical' as a 
> one-word modifier for this class of information.  Lexical 
> information deals with terms and is reusable across
> instances of the term.   Terms associated with the second class of
> claryifying information include "syntax, semantics, 
> pragmatics, antecedent, anaphoric,..."  For this note I am 
> going to use 'contextual' as a one-word modifier for this 
> latter class of information.  Contextual information is not 
> expressible in general as it varies so much from instance to instance.
> 
> Notes:
> 
> 1. Not all terms look like one word.  Compound terms such as 
> "Term of Art" may be documented in a glossary or other 
> lexical resource.  This is considered lexical information and 
> not contextual.  The several tokens in a compound term are 
> used to identify one concept.
> 
> 2. We don't need to get into definitions of syntactic vs. 
> semantic information to explain how to structure and express 
> clarifying information for the purposes of accessibility.  
> The category of lexical information is pretty well defined in 
> both academic linguistics and practice in the Standards 
> community. Everything else will have to be handled by 
> annotations of one form or another (whether markup or
> metadata) we don't have to get deep into the theory of 
> natural languages and their processing to get our point across.
> 
> 
> >
> >Also remember to comment if you do like the rewrite (one can hope)
> >
> >
> >on to the main....
> >
> >Firstly, I think part of 3.3 can be incorporated into a core 
> checkpoint 
> >without unduly or overly  changing the content of the page... The 
> >purpose of a core checkpoint will be to ensure that user agents can
> 
> >provide assistance to the user, to summarize, simplify and aid
> navigation.
> >
> >
> >Specifically we could require in a core checkpoint:
> >
> >
> >Provide assistance to enable the user to find and understand core
> >information.
> >
> >criteria:
> >
> >1, provide uniqueness of page titles
> >
> >2, provide headings and linked text that are unique and 
> clear when read 
> >out of context
> >
> >3,  markup of  key information that the user most typically requires
> >with
> >structural markup -(note: this is  similar to1.3 [CORE] 
> however we are 
> >adding a requirement  to _identify_  important content - and then 
> >incorporate it into structural mark up )
> >
> >4,  when the content is more important then the writing 
> style, clarify 
> >Syntactic and Semantic ambiguity, (but not word ambiguity). -see end
> notes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >checkpoint 3.3 -E
> >
> >The "review" criteria was added as a compromise position, between
> >allowing
> >us to state some clear writing requirements and making it practical. 
> >However in view of us now being able to make this an extended
> checkpoint, 
> >we do not have to have the same concerns. If it is inappropriate for
> this 
> >content to use short sentence - well then the author can still claim
> >accessibility, but just not to this checkpoint. From the user
> perspective, 
> >this page is not accessible this audience if certain clear 
> and certain
> >criteria are not met.
> >
> >
> >
> >checkpoint 3.3 - provide clear content
> >
> >success criteria
> >    * All terms  used are available in a linked to, fully 
> accessible  
> >accessible simple language lexicon, or supplementary lexicon 
> of topic  
> >specific Jargon
> >    * A language structure is chosen to aid comprehension (such as
> active 
> > voice in languages where this form helps convey information)
> >    * Strings of no more than three nouns are defined as a 
> phrase in a
> > linked to lexicon
> >    * Sentences without lists do not exceed 25 words.
> >    * Do not use more then two conjunctions in a sentence or 
> list item 
> > (unless in  a sub list).
> >    * Paragraphs do not contain more then 7 sentences
> >    * Separate ideas are provided in a  separate paragraphs
> >    * The key term or idea of each paragraph is easily identifiable 
> > (techniques: through markup like em, or by "front loading")
> >    * Inclusion of non-text content to symbolize or replace text for
> key 
> > pages
> >    * Clarity of references are provided for  pronouns and anaphoric
> > expressions (these refer back to something already said in the text)
> >        * example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys.
> They 
> > eat bananas."
> >    * Conjunction forms and adverbs  are used correctly to make
> explicit 
> > the relationship between phrases or parts of the text such as "and,"
> > "but," "furthermore," "not only"
> >    * Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information (for
> example 
> > provide a summary, document map or flow diagram)
> >    * Provide all steps in  required actions  or in the 
> explanation of
> > instructions
> >    * Provide consistency in the use of names and labels
> >    * clarify where the document:
> >        * addresses users
> >        * explains choices and options
> >        * labels options to get more information
> >        * instructs users how to modify selections in critical
> functions 
> > (such as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)
> >    * application of:
> >        * goal-action structure for menu prompts
> >        * default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
> >        * two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce 
> accidental
> > selections for critical functions
> >        * calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate
> >
> >
> >Best practices:
> >    * care in the use of all-capital letters where normal 
> sentence case  
> >might increase comprehension
> >    * providing support for conversion into symbolic languages
> >    * testing with potential with cognitive disabilities  users for
> ease 
> > of accessibility
> >    * use a well known lexicon.
> >
> >background and notes:
> >
> >Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information  - 
> this provides
> 
> >a
> >clear testable form that will encourage the author to use  logic and
> order 
> >in the flow of information, whilst providing a summary.
> >
> >Syntactic ambiguity occurs when there is more than one possible
> >syntactic parses for a grammatical sentence. For example, 
> the sentence 
> >Fasten the assembly with the lever. This may be either an 
> instruction 
> >to fasten the assembly using a lever, or an instruction to 
> fasten the 
> >assembly, which has a lever attached to it. With the prepositional 
> >phrase with the lever can be attached to the verb or to the 
> noun phrase
> 
> >object. However often a Syntactic ambiguity is caused by a word
> >ambiguity- in our example the word with is ambiguous. With  
> could mean 
> >using or connected to. Semantic ambiguity Semantic ambiguity occurs 
> >when other knowledge sources are required to determine the 
> meaning of a
> 
> >sentence.  For example, the sentence Start the engine and keep it
> >running, the fact that it refers to the engine is not inferable from 
> >the single clause keep it running. The ambiguity is caused by the 
> >difficulty in resolving the pronoun. were the context can 
> not decipher 
> >the word
> >
> >
> >All the best
> >
> >Lisa Seeman
> >
> ><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> >
> >Visit us at the <http://www.ubaccess.com/>UB Access website
> >
> >UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 03:42:32 UTC