PLAIN: Proposed rewording for Principle 3 and Guideline 3.1 with success criteria, best practices, benefits, and examples

Plain language version of Principle 3, Guideline 3.1 with success
criteria, benefits, and examples

 

This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_
rewording of WCAG 2.0 Guideline 3 and Checkpoint 3.1 with Success
Criteria, Examples, and Benefits

 

This is submitted in partial fulfillment of an action item taken by John
Slatin, Katie Haritos-Shay, and Doyle Burnett during a call in late
September or early October, to generate a plain-language version of WCAG
2.  

 

This message is partial in two ways: (1) It addresses only Guideline
(now Principle) 3, Checkpoint (now Guideline) 3.1, and the relevant
success criteria, examples, and benefits.  Other guidelines, etc., will
follow.  (2) It is not really "plain language," in the sense that this
text has not yet been compared to the 1500-word "special lexicon" used
by Voice of America (or other similar lexicons).  Thus it's actually
best understood as an attempt to simplify and clarify.  We're still
working on the formal plain language issues, but wanted to put this out
to start generating discussion.

 

Items labeled "Current wording" are taken from the September document
Reorg 4, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4.html
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4.html> .  This document was
current at the time Katie and Doyle and I took on the action item to
attempt a plain language version.  Of course the proposed rewordings
will need to be correlated with later updates.


Current wording for Guideline 3


Guideline 3: UNDERSTANDABLE. Make content and controls understandable to
as many users as possible.

 


Proposed wording for Principle 3


Principle 3: UNDERSTANDABLE. Content and controls should be
understandable to as many users as possible.


Current wording for Checkpoint 3.1


3.1 [CORE] Language of content can be programmatically determined.


Proposed wording for Guideline 3.1


3.1 [CORE] Make it possible for automated devices to identify languages
used in the content.

 

 


Current wording for Checkpoint 3.1, SC 1


1.    passages or fragments of text occurring within the content that
are written in a language other than the primary natural language of the
content as a whole, are identified, including specification of the
language of the passage or fragment.

 

Note:

A. Foreign words or phrases that are found in standard unabridged
dictionaries for the natural language of the content do not need to be
marked.

B. This success criterion applies only to foreign words, not to
imaginary words, dialect abbreviations and other words that may not be
found in an unabridged dictionary of the primary language but that are
not foreign words.

 


Proposed wording for Guideline 3.1, SC 1


1.  The natural language of the document as a whole can be identified by
automated tools, including assistive technology.


Current wording for Checkpoint 3.1, SC2


2.    document attributes identify the natural language of the document.

 

Editorial Note: In techniques discussion, it has been argued that
language attributes for documents are as important as identifying
changes in language within documents. Moving it up here for future
discussion.


Proposed wording for Guideline 3.1, SC 2


2. In text documents, the language of any passage or phrase that is not
written in the primary natural language of the document can be
identified by automated tools, including assistive technology.

 

Exceptions:

A. The requirement above does not apply to foreign words or phrases that
are found in unabridged dictionaries for the natural language of the
content.

B. This success criterion does not apply to imaginary words, dialect
abbreviations, or other words that are not found in an unabridged
Dictionaries of the primary natural languagein which the document is
written.

 

Editorial Note: In techniques discussion, it has been argued that
language attributes for documents are as important as identifying
changes in language within documents. Moving it up here for future
discussion.


Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 3.1


None listed


Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 3.1


 


Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 3.1


* Phrases from various languages, acronyms and abbreviations are often
interspersed in writing. When these phrases are identified, a speech
synthesizer can voice text with the appropriate accent and
pronunciation. When they are not identified, the speech synthesizer will
use the default accent and pronunciation of the language on the rest of
the page, which can make the phrase unintelligible. Identifying changes
in language and marking abbreviations and acronyms as such will also
allow a tool to ask for automatic translations of that content. When
editing content, authoring tools can switch between appropriate spelling
dictionaries.


Proposed wording for Who benefits from Checkpoint 3.1 (Informative)


*        People who are blind benefit when screen readers correctly
pronounce the text of documents that include passages in more than one
language. (Screen readers can switch automatically to the appropriate
pronunciation rules when language changes are properly identified.)


Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 3.1


* Example 1: a French phrase in an English sentence.

 

In the following sentence, "And with a certain je ne sais quoi, she
entered both the room, and his life, forever." the French phrase "je ne
sais quoi" is marked as French. Depending on the markup language,
English may either be marked as the language for the entire document
except where specified, or marked


Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 3.1  (Informative)


* Example 1: a French phrase in a sentence, in a document written in
English.

 

In the following sentence, "And with a certain je ne sais quoi, she
entered both the room, and his life, forever." the phrase "je ne sais
quoi" is marked as French. Screen readers automatically apply the rules
of French pronunciation, then switch back to English for the rest of the
sentence.  

 

[js note: We should include other examples, e.g., of documents that
include material in multiple languages like the ones Yvette mentioned in
a call recently.]

 

 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>