- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:23 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Are diacritic marks still required in the new draft or was i just missing it. I am forwarding an old email for context and the results of the Israel internet society accessibility group (ISOC IL) conclusions keep well all Lisa ----- Original > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lisa seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:22 AM > > To: W3c-Wai-Gl@W3.Org (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) > > Subject: diacritic marks > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > diacritic marks - conclusions from ISOC IL > > > > We are happy with the current wording and prioritization of the success > > criteria. :) > > > > We would like however to suggest adding a level three criteria that seas > > the all diacritic marks necessary for pronunciation should be provided, > and > > should be removable at the users request. > > > > ISOC IL have also taken a n action item to document what words need what > > diacritic marks in Hebrew to fulfill the criteria. > > > > Background > > Some languages use diacritic marks to give the pronunciation of a word. In > > some languages (like Hebrew and Arabic) most spellings, without diacritic > > marks, can be resolved to more then one word. Use of context enables the > > average reader to work out what word was intended. > > > > Natural language processing used in screen readers can often guess what > > word is intended without diacritic marks. However all screen readers will > > often make mistakes. > > > > User benefits > > > > It is estimated (by ISOC -il - need to get refrences) that 3% of the > > population have a visually impaired memory which makes reading many words > > without diacritic marks extremely difficult. This segment of the > population > > can use a screen reader to help them though the reading process. However > > when the screen reader guess a word incorrectly, they will often be unable > > to correct the mistake themselves, as guessing different pronunciation of > > words based on an identical spelling is difficult to impossible for many > > dyslexics. > > > > It should also be remembered that screen readers are difficult to use and > > are expensive. > > > > Vision impaired people using screen readers are also affected by missing > > diacritic marks. All screen readers will make mistakes, and will > pronounce > > the wrong word. This will occur more often then an incorrect word > > pronunciation makes grammatical sense. The user then has to guess the > > meaning of a sentence - by as guessing different pronunciation of words > > based on an identical spelling. This extra processing time on the users > part > > means that they can not speed up the screen reader, and often have to > reread > > passages. > > > > > > Finally I want to personally thank everyone who help contribute and > resolve > > this difficult issue. > > > > All the best > > > > Lisa Seeman > > > > > > > > Visit us at the UB <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Access website > > > > UB Access - Moving internet accessibility > > > > > > > > I spoke to Melingo (finally ) yesterday. I will meet up with them some > time > > over the next few weeks. > > > > Info so far: > > User agents.: > > what they call a screen reader , is a program were you have to copy > the > > text into it and it will read it > > So their screen reader need vision. single installation NS4000 > > the average monthly salaried before tax and health insurance deductions is > > about NS5000 > > Average salary for a dyslexic is much lower. Don't ask about other > > disabilities > > I t does not help completely vision impaired people > > > > use of a similar tool on line as a web site exists (so they will not give > us > > the right to do this) and costs NS 350 up a month for personal use - if > you > > use it often it costs more. > > > > Again you need to copy and paste -it is not a portal. > > > > Authoring tools for the web owner to vowel the site > > It is a finished product but they do not have a fixed price- depends to > who > > > > They have another product, that makes a mp3 of a reading of your page. The > > user clicks a button to get the reading. For Peaple who can not read you > > then can not tell were in the page to press, Peaple who can not see it is > > not useful. It helps low vision . > > > > According to their head of accessibility, this is based on ten years of > > research and is proprietary. > > > > My summary: > > > > In terms of helping at the user end we have two options. > > I can try to help Melingo t u rn their "screen reader" into a true > screen > > reader - but it will be years until such a product is available. and > will > > be expensive for the end user. > > > > Probably the best if slowest solution will be to sponsor research in the > > public domain at the Technion. Gregg, can you look into the possibility of > > raising financing ? > > Again it will take years for a partial solution. > > > > Solving the problem from the authors side is immediate and cost effective. > > In other words - It can solve the problem today, You can add the vowels > > for free without their tools in Unicode, you can buy word processor were > you > > can put in the vowels, and I hope switching a week or two to put up a free > > JavaScript tool to make it doable to by anyone. Mac come with a similar > > tool. > > However acknowledging that for a large site this is an enormous amount of > > work - they can buy Nakdan from Melingo. > > > > The clincher for me is the fact that Nakdan does make mistakes. At the > user > > end there is nothing to be done but confusion, because you do not know > what > > the word was meant to be. At the author end you can easily correct your > work > > using a word processor or free tool. > > > > > > Back to the checkpoint: > > > > I think the wording as it stands: > > 'Provide information needed for unambiguous decoding of the characters and > > words in the content' > > > > is perfect- when the user agent decipher the word correctly, then the > > checkpoint has been fulfilled automatically. When the user agents > portal > > are unable to adds the vowels, then clearly not all the information > > needed for unambiguous decoding has been provided, and the > responsibility > > falls on the web content provider . I am going to put up a site that goes > > through these issues from beginning to end. It may help.... > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > Lisa Seeman > > > > UnBounded Access > > > > Widen the World Web > > > > http://www.UBaccess.com > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 15:07:10 UTC