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

Re: Alternative approach for Plain Language

From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 06:07:01 -0700
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFF7749AC9.E2D72B14-ON8825812A.00464908-8825812A.00480CA1@notes.na.collabserv.com>
>  Am I missing something? 

Yes, I think you need to go back and reread it a bit more carefully.

> You say it plugs a hole regarding labels 

Nope, I never say that. This is entirely concerned with instructions.

> The techniques could indeed be attached to the SC — but none are 
required to meet the SC. 

That is the point of techniques; they offer ways of achieving a target but 
not the only ways. However, techniques offer paths and encourage adoption. 
Use of ARIA doesn't exist as an SC. But the ARIA techniques clearly 
encouraged adoption and offered guidance to teams on how to use it to 
better content. 

>  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. 

Well, that really depends on what guidance goes into the Understanding 
Document, how the techniques are written, and how organizations/teams 
adopt the SC. If you look at the Understanding document and general 
techniques for 2.4.6, you'll see that there is in fact a lot of context 
and guidance offered there that is not normative but is compelling to 
authors to improve content. I frequently fail poor language in labels and 
headings using this SC.

So for an SC directed at improving the clarity and understandability of 
Instructions, imagine if you had techniques that were gathered under 
General topics like:
Using simple, clear and common words
Using present tense and active voice
etc 

I understand the limitations of the approach. But I also understand what 
could be achieved by getting the techniques in front of people.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
To:     Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Cc:     w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Date:   2017-05-23 07:08 PM
Subject:        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




On May 23, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Michael Gower <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

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034




Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 13:07:46 UTC

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