Re: language step by step: - was Re: might be last option for plain language

​​
Hi Lisa,

I am happy and prepared to hang-back after Tuesday's call to discuss this.
Some of the questions I am seeking to resolve:

   - The current proposed SC is asking for a word list, but in what kind of
   *format*? I deliberately provided a "list" in the excel format (.xslt)
   to illustrate a point: that a "list" is a non-technical term that needs
   better clarity. What format should the list be provided in? HTML? TXT? PDF?
   Other?

   - What is the proposed *content *of the list? It strikes me that a list
   of words, without any definition or other instructional use, is simply a
   list of words.
   Using the term *atmosphere* as one of my common 1500 words for a
   different site, do I simply list the term? Provide a short definition? Use
   it in a sentence? More? Less? Something entirely different?

   atmosphere – the blanket of gases that surrounds the Earth.
             Used in a sentence: burr, it’s cold in here, it must be
   something in the atmosphere.
   (source:
   http://reekoscience.com/science-glossary/glossary-of-science-words)

   - How is the list "provided"? I have previously asked about the *mechanism
   *where-by a list of words is *linked to a document or site*. There are
   no technical details about how this is envisioned to be accomplished - is
   it provided as meta-data, is it linked from the header or footer content,
   or something else instead? (Does this mean we have just mandated header
   and/or footer content or something similar?) Is the document simply stored
   at the root of the URL for any given site, and we then let spiders (Google)
   discover it? Or is the list registered at a central repository? (and if so,
   where?)

   - *What do we do* with this list? My list of 99 unique terms *was the
   list* that the SC requires for the referenced page, but then what? How does
   providing that list benefit any user?

Previously, you wrote, "The option of using coga semantics means..."

I will have to push back here slightly, as "coga semantics", while a
proposed W3C Recommendation, is still a long way from being a supported
specification, and we cannot be writing a dependant specification that
purports to use a technological solution that is still in a conceptual
phase.

The analogy to ARIA and WCAG 2.0 you have suggested previously is
incorrect, as each of the SC published in 2.0 could be accomplished in a
fashion that DID NOT require the use of ARIA - although by using ARIA you
got significant enhancements, and/or accomplishing "success" was
significantly easier, but there is a difference there.

Prior to working for Deque, I worked for one of the largest banks in
America (JPMC), and because our user-stats back then showed a significant
number of users who were behind the curve in terms of browser adoption, we
were not allowed to use ARIA alone to meet compliance requirements. While I
struggled mightily to change that position, it wasn't until just recently
that the bank relented to the point where ARIA is now an accepted solution
to specific issues. Even if the Coga Semantics spec was ready and finalized
prior to the release of 2.1, it does not mean that all web-publishers out
there will adopt it right away - and we cannot "force" them to do so.

So while Coga Semantics shows great promise, we cannot be dependent on that
today to meet the needs we are trying to meet.

Lisa, I'm not trying to be difficult here, I am genuinely concerned that
this SC as presented today is, at best, incomplete, confusing and of little
apparent value. I understand that for some users, a controlled vocabulary
(especially in the given context of labels, instructions, error message,
and other navigational elements) has a benefit. However, as currently
written, it is unclear how to apply that benefit to a web page / app /site
in any meaningful way, and minus that, this SC is (I'm afraid) quite
incomplete.

Respectfully,

JF




On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:28 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Thanks for being frank here.
>
> I must say I don't realy understand what you are suggesting but maybe the
> important point is you are not sure what this is about.
>
> Maybe we could have a call after the WCAG call on Tuesday for thoughs who
> are interested were we go though what would be involved step by step.
>
> We would not discuss wording or inclusion but just g over what it would
> involve.
>
> We could then decide if the dircetion os OK before we get caught up on the
> wording
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 18 May 2017 16:48:09 +0300 *John
> Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi All,
>
> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still continue to struggle
> with *WHAT* we're supposed to do with the word list.
>
> Currently the draft states (in part):
>
> Provide words or phrases from a public core vocabulary; or the most
> common 1500 words or phrases (including word roots); or 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.
> (https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/plain-language-minimum_
> ISSUE-30/guidelines/sc/21/plain-language-minimum.html)
>
> Now, I'll use *that* actual URL/page for my example. After grabbing
> *every* word on that page, I note there are 99 unique terms being used. I
> have provided those terms in the enclosed list (attachment: wordlist.xslt).
>
> By my reading of the current SC wording, my mailing of that excel
> spreadsheet that is all "the common words" for that page to this Group
> mailing list, I have technically "provided it" - at least to this list.
>
> At the risk of sounding like a jerk, have I now met this SC? By a literal
> reading and interpretation, I will argue yes (and so you  just KNOW others
> are going to do something similar).
>
> Until such time as there is a concrete mechanism for "providing" that is
> standardized and supported by tool*s*, I do not see how this SC is useful
> for much of anything practical. And while I remain hopeful for future
> technologies and W3C specs to help address the core issue here, future
> technologies and W3C specs are still in the "flying car" category for me
> today.
>
> This is not to say that I do not understand what is being sought here,
> only that currently this is quite immature in it's technical merit, as well
> is incomplete and confusing in it's current draft language, and I
> anticipate a ton of push-back on this as written today.
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Michael Pluke <
> Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
>
> I really don't see any prospect of that the word lists that you produce
> will achieve the level of universal acceptance that would be necessary for
> them to be adopted as the lists to which all websites must conform to meet
> WCAG 2.1.
>
> Some proposed European ICT terminology work will be trying to get
> acceptance for some default terms for common ICT functionality (in a subset
> of European languages), but this will only produce guidance. Any company
> that fails to fully adopt the terminology will not be penalized in the same
> that they would if they failed to meet WCAG 2.1.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Mike Pluke
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:56 AM +0100, "lisa.seeman" <
> lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> I actually offered to do a few pages if the group agree that they are
> interested in this direction
>
> for a topic like web standards I would need to make a word list (one list
> is needed for a whole industry so it is not too bad)
>
> However, if we do agree to go in this direction, I will be happy to create
> word lists for ten verticals to start with (health, banking, technology,
> education...) and clear instructions on how to do it.
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Wed, 17 May 2017 16:01:30 +0300 *Gregg C
> Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu <greggvan@umd.edu>>* wrote ----
>
> please redo the pages I cited in previous post (including ours) to show
> what you mean and demonstrate that it is possible
>
> it is easy to assert these things - but not to do them.
>
> *g*
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2017, at 2:39 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> I think each issue can be worked out in the plain language, for example
> the wording seas "or or 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.." in other word , you can iether use the most
> commen `1500 words in a core vocabulary (easy to find out), or * the
> most-common form to refer to the concept*
>
> It should be  possible to express a concept in a by using the most common
> form to refer to it. Do you disagree?
>
> The option of using coga semantics means that it does not restrict your
> style, even on a label.
>
> We also have an exception for special cases but we can also add an
> exception for names including the names of   product, deliverable, services
>  and trademarks
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion