Re: Are these SC now testable?

I just looked at one (#30 Plain Language). I assume the new text is the version avaliable when following the link at the top "SC for editing”.

For "Common words" you have:
"Common words: Use the most common 1500 words (including word roots in agglutinative languages) or phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form to refer to the concept in a public word frequency list for the context."

This statement is VERY hard to understand, let alone apply to some draft text an authors may be looking at in the light of this SC. The same goes for testers. Others have elaborated on the difficulties of applying such a word set, I don”t need to reiterate it here, just note that the changes do not address the concerns expressed in several comments.

For “Concrete language", you have:
"Non-literal language is not used, or can be automatically replaced, via an easy-to-set user setting”

For authors, it would be quite unclear what ‘automatically’ means - if it is in fact a customisation setting offered to users, then it is the very opposite of automatic. 
Authors might assume that they are asked to supply the replacement mechanism as part and parcel of the content which is probably not the intention of the SC. Or is it? This is not clear from the SC text.
I cannot imagimne this function to work well and imagine all sorts of mishaps when an author-specified non-literal text elements  (probaby quite rare in the type of content to which this SC is now scoped), elements that may refer to other places, are suddenly (automatically??) replaced by other, presumably simpler, text.

As to your question about testability: I would not know how to test text elements now in scope against things like the 1500 word set unless that is supplied by the author (which will rarely be the case).
I may ofren not be so sure whether text is non-literal - language is full of metaphors which become through frequent use, literal. Take the term “mailbox” as an example. There is no box, still the term is common, arguably non-literal, and probably should’t be replaced (by what, anyway?). So there is no way to make this prescription work for a case-by-case test, IMO.

Best, Detlev

> On 4 Apr 2017, at 20:45, lisa.seeman <> wrote:
>  Hi Folks
> We have new wording for:
> Accessible authentication #23 <>
> Support Personalization #6 <>
> Plain language (Minimum) #30 <>
> We think we have addressed all the key issues by proving an alternative option or  cutting back and clarifying the language.
> Please add comments to the github if you think that there are issues we have overlooked (other then overlap which we are not addressing now).
>  Also add comments if you like the new wording so we can see how we are doing
> Thanks so much and all the best
> Lisa Seeman
> LinkedIn <>, Twitter <>

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:30:16 UTC