Re: we need to quantify what the issues can not be meet for plain language

On the straw poll, the question was

AWK: Is there a chance of a 1500 word limit getting through?

So my answer was to that specific question. Not other parts of the SC, or
other ways to try to approach this.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:15 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Plain language and use on common words is a pillar for accessibility for
> coga. if we do not include it at all we have not fulfilled our charter in
> any meaningful way that  WCAG 2.1 will also incorporate updated Success
> Criteria related to content and digital publications accessed by people
> with low-vision and with cognitive disabilities. so we need to be very
> clear why we are not doing this and very clear that it can not be done.
>
> Before we leave this one out, i think  we must have clear consistent on
> what criteria for getting into wcag is not met and give coga a good chance
> to answer it and only reject this if we are fully convinced and have fully
> documented why  one of our acceptance criteria *can not be met*.
>
> looking at the survey responses about common words I found questions on
> "how" , but the straw poll indicated that this would not get though even if
> we have clear "how to meet this section"  have clear "how techniques" and
> how to test etc   (I also want to correct the minuets, I had asked for a
> straw poll  asking people if we had clear how to sections and clear
> techniques and worked on the wording is there any chance they can see it
> going though - I did not ask about the 1500 word limit, because that is
> only ONE option)
>
> The other issue raised in the survey was about the limit of 1500 words,
> but, as I clarified in my last email, that was only only way to meet the
> common terms item.
>
> Another concern was for what language  profession and time, but that is
> why we had the option of *a word, phrases or abbreviations that are the
> most-common form to refer to the concept in a public word frequency list
> for the identified context. (*We all agree that we need to specify how to
> do this, but for now we were just focused on the SC wording, we also have
> definitions for * public word frequency list *and  *identified context* which
> help define that - they may need tweeki g, but we first need to agree on
> the direction)
>
> We have really tried to meet all the  concerns, and more work may be
> needed. But I think we all need to be on the same page on what criteria can
> not be met.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:52:34 +0300 * White<jjwhite@ets.org
> <jjwhite@ets.org>>* wrote ----
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:35 PM
>
> we have at working draft semantics for personlization like coga-action and
> coga-easylang that would alow people to conform to the plain language
> proposal via personlization ( see https://w3c.github.io/
> personalization-semantics )
>
>
>
> I understood from this group that they do not want to rely on this for
> conformance, however with the plain language sc as written you can either
> change the text or use the personlization semantics.  In other words the
> free speach is not an issue
>
> *[Jason] It remains an issue if you can’t express what you want to express
> at all within the restricted vocabulary. I don’t think the concern
> regarding free speech was so much about changing the default version of the
> content as it was a more fundamental point about not being able to (1)
> comply with a controlled/restricted vocabulary and (2) express what one
> wants to – even if the restrictions only operate with respect to labels,
> instructions, etc. Whether the “plain language” text is presented by
> default, embedded in metadata or provided as a link to a separate resource
> doesn’t address this issue.*
>
>
>
> Those who expressed the concerns will doubtless correct me if I’m
> misinterpreting their point here.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>