W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

RE: Do we like this better? - was way to move forward with plain language

From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 14:53:13 +0000
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR07MB34570E1F892ADAA0CFDF898FABF80@BN6PR07MB3457.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detlev Fischer [mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:22 AM
> lisa.seeman schrieb am 22.05.2017 15:55:
>
> > It looks like we are more comfortable with this direction - but we
> > would need some testing tools before CR SO far as I know the IBM tool is not
> free, and the Microsoft tool requires a subscription.
> > A way to move forward is put it in the next version of wcag 2.1 and reach out
> to the companies for a free version of the tool.
>
> In my view, any automatic tool checking the commonality of words by applying
> some generic algorithm will be bound to produce incorrect results in all cases
> where you have a site covering a specific domain with specific terms (i.e., very
> often). Synonyms where you can replace one term with another without also
> introducing a shift of meaning are the exception, not the rule. Then you have the
> homonym problem (same term meaning different things in diffeent contexts /
> domains) A tool that offers a meaningful analysis would have to be capable of
> inferring the respective domain and its vocabulary and adapting its algorithm
> accordingly.
[Jason] The central problem with this proposal (and with the original proposal, in my view) is that it's unclear how to define the domain, and hence how to identify which vocabulary is relevant in a specific context. This is where debates can arise regarding which domain is the right one to use, how it should be characterized, and what words should be considered relevant (even if one has frequency data that meet some as yet unspecified criterion of acceptability).
Also, if you're required to choose words from a specific vocabulary, this can lead to misleading text if the words that best convey the intended meaning aren't on the list. If the audience is supposed to be as broad as possible, and if the Web site is sufficiently general in purpose, then perhaps a frequency list for the entire language would help, but only under very special circumstances suggestive of a level AAA criterion.


________________________________

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.

________________________________
Received on Monday, 22 May 2017 14:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC