3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call

I took an action item yesterday to repost the 3.1 proposal to reflect
decisions reached on the call.  Text version follows; HTML version
attached.

<26 May update>
Guideline 3.1: Proposal 2005-05-26Proposal for Guideline 3.1 ("meaning")
Draft 2005-05-26
Submitted by John Slatin
<proposed>
Guideline 3.1 . Make text content readable and understandable.
Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
  [Adopted 26 May] The primary natural language or languages of the
delivery 
  unit can be programmatically determined.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L1 SC1
  A mechanism for finding the expanded form of acronyms and
abbreviations is 
  available.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L1 SC2
  [Rejected 26 May]A measure of the education level required to read the
content 
  is available.

  Guide to GL 3.1 L1 SC3
Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
  A mechanism is available for finding definitions for all words in text

content.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L2 SC1
  A mechanism is available for identifying the natural language of each
foreign 
  passage or phrase in the content. Foreign passages or phrases are
written in a 
  language that is different from the language of the delivery unit as a
whole.
  Note: This requirement does not apply to individual words or phrases
that have 
  become part of the primary language of the content. This is because
"correct" 
  pronunciation of such words and phrases might confuse or distract
native 
  speakers of the content's primary language.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L2 SC2
  One or more of the following alternative versions is available when
text 
  content requires the reading ability expected of native speakers who
have 
  completed at least nine years of school:
    A text summary that can be read by adults with the reading ability
expected 
    of native speakers who have completed fewer than seven years of
school.
    One or more simplified graphical illustrations.
    A spoken version of the text content.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L2 SC3
Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
  [Adopted 26 May] A mechanism is available for identifying specific
definitions 
  of words used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and
jargon.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC1
  [Updated 25 May] A mechanism is available for finding the correct 
  pronunciation of any word whose pronunciation cannot be determined
from 
  context.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC2
  Section headings and link text are understandable when read by
themselves or 
  as a group (for example in a list of links or a table of contents).
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC3
  A mechanism is available to identify text that states important ideas
or 
  provides important information.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC4
  For delivery units at the first or second level in a set of delivery
units, 
  text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected
for 
  native speakers who have completed fewer than seven years of school.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC5
  For delivery units below the second level in a set of delivery units,
text 
  content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for
native 
  speakers who have completed fewer than nine years of school.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC6
  Simplified graphical illustrations are available when text presents
ideas or 
  describes processes that users must understand in order to use the
content.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC7
  A spoken version of text content is available.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC8
  Signed video is available for key pages or sections of pages.
  Guide to GL 3.1 L3 SC9 (in progress)
</proposed> 
Changes following the 26 May 2005 WG call
  L1 SC 1: Adopted; "programmatically determined" replaces "A mechanism
is 
  available"
  L1 SC3: Rejected
  L3 SC1: adopted, with proviso to work on processes for testing
"unusual" and 
  "restricted"
Change introduced on 25 May 2005
  Not yet discussed by WG: L3 SC2 (pronunciation( has been changed so
that it 
  now requires a mechanism for finding the "correct pronunciation" of
"any word 
  whose pronunciation cannot be determined from context" instead of
requiring 
  pronunciation support for "all" words in text content. This still
isn't quite 
  right: it introduces a new problem of testing whether pronunciation
can be 
  determined from context. But pronunciation support is important and I
think 
  this is better than my original proposal requiring support for all
words in 
  the content.
Differences between draft of 21 May 2005 and draft of 30 April
  L1 SC1 now refers explicitly to the "primary natural language or
languages" of 
  the content. This responds to questions raised by Wendy and Tim
Boland; the 
  I18N Workign Group notes that the lang and xml:lang attributes may
take 
  comma-separated language identifiers for documents that have multiple
primary 
  languages, e.g., Canadian documents in which English and French have
equal 
  place. Note that identifying multiple primary languages still requires
that 
  language changes within the body of the content are identified when
they occur 
  (as per L2 SC2; we may need to promote L2 SC2 to L1 for this reason). 
  L1 SC3 now requires a readability measure of the text content
("measure of the 
  education level required to read the content") instead of calling for
a 
  description of the education level of the intended audience. I believe
this 
  addresses Jason's concern about the need to provide precise data about
actual 
  educational attainment within the target audience by refocusing the SC
on the 
  content instead of the audience. 
  L3 SC1 changes "intended definitions" to "specific definitions" of
words used 
  in unusual or restricted ways. This avoids the problem of seeming to
require a 
  test of authorial intent, and I think addresss Tim Boland's concern. 
  Brief summary of differences between this proposal and the current
wording
Relatively small changes
  Several SC were rewritten to describe functional outcomes, as per LA
decision 
  and baseline analysis: L1 SC1, SC2; L2 SC1, SC2; L3 SC 1, SC2
  L2 SC1 (meaning and pronunciations) is broken into two SC and the SC
about 
  pronunciation information has been moved to L3
  L2 SC2 (idioms) has been moved to L3 and merged into L3 SC1.
Rationale: L3 SC1 
  deals with words used in highly specific ways. An idiom is a word used
by 
  native speakers in a way that breaks the bounds of the dictionary
definition, 
  so I think that idioms and jargon both qualify as instances of the
more 
  general category.
Major changes
  L3 SC3 (statement asserting that the following list of strategies for
reducing 
  complexity has been considered) is deleted.
A number of new SC have been introduced. The primary goal was to replace
L3 SC3 
with meaningful and testable success criteria that would promote
readability and 
make understanding easier for people with a range of disabilities,
including 
reading disabilities.The new SC are:
  L1 SC3: requires a description of the education level of the intended
audience 
  for the content.
  L2 SC3: requires one or more alternative versions (including optional
non-text 
  alternatives) for text content that requires education level at or
above 10th 
  grade (US), 10 years in school/upper secondary level international 
  classification.
  L3 SC2: requires pronunciation information. This one was originally
included 
  in L2 SC1; has been separated from the issue of definitions and moved
to L3 
  because it seems significantly more difficult to provide.
  L3 SC4: requires a mechanism for identifying most important points in
text 
  content.
  L3 SC5: requires that text on first- and second-level pages is
readable at 6th 
  grade level (US)/end of primary education international classification
L3 SC6: 
  requires that text below second-level is readable at 8th grade level
(US)/late 
  lower secondary international classification
  L3 SC7: requires simplified graphical illustrations of important 
  ideas/descritions of processes (this is an option at L2, required at
L3
  L3 SC8: requires spoken-word version of text content (also an option
at L2 
  that becomes a requirement at L3
  L3 SC9: requires signed video for key pages or passages
</26 May update>


"Good design is accessible design." 
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/