Re: Alternative approach for Plain Language

I’m not sure I understand.
l followed the link but am very confused by what I land on. 


Is the SC =  "Instructions describe the topic or purpose."

If so - I can’t see how any instructions could fail.   I guess you could have instructions that tell you what to do - but do not tell you what carrying out the instructions will accomplish.

The techniques could indeed be attached to the SC — but none are required to meet the SC.  I could use very complicated language to describe the topic or purpose and I would still pass.   The instructions themselves can also be complicated and pass this SC.  


Am I missing something?    


You say it plugs a hole regarding labels — but this doesn’t talk about labels at all.      ????


If you just want a place to hang techniques  this works — but only techniques dealing with instructions — not labels (unless you really stretch it) 


confused in maryland, 

apologies if I am misunderstanding this


g 



Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>




> On May 23, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com <mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
> 
> On today's call (in the extended time), I proposed a departure from the current approach to Plain Lanugage, which I was asked to draft. Here it is:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30#issuecomment-303492002 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30#issuecomment-303492002>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
> 
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com <mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034