- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:04:05 -0600
- To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <lisa@ubaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This criterion was revised significantly back in Feb. 2004 when we combined 4 guidelines into what is now guideline 3.1. I believe this is now covered in 3.1, level 2, item 1 in that for some languages, pronunciations could not be located without diacritic marks: [snip] The meanings and pronunciations of all words in the content can be programmatically located. [end snip] Issue #608 [1] includes some of this history of the changes to this section. Hope this helps, -Ben [1] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=608 >-----Original Message----- >From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On >Behalf Of Lisa Seeman >Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:06 AM >To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >Subject: Re: diacritic marks > > >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 16:07:43 UTC