RE: A testability example

Hi Jason

I think the case you gave has been covered by the exceptions. If not we should extend them. 


Unfortunately this was just a snippet to discuss testability. Widely appropriate is a different issue that we handled by a, reducing the scope (this is basicly for things like  navigational elements ) and b, adding exceptions such as   


writing style is an essential part of the main function of the site, such as a game, a literary work, or teaching new terms.
 The content will be penalized for not conforming to a given writing style (such as a CV, dissertation, or Ph.D. proposal). etc....

These are a whole bunch of them. If we missed out any cases we should add to the exceptions or reduce the scope further if that is appropriate.  But this is not a testability issue.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:53:23 +0200  White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 

     
  
     From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 4:57 PM
 To: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 
 
 
 
    The COGA task force have been having an interesting discussion., I thought it would pass it on to the WCAG list to check we are on the same pagein terms of testability 
 
   
 
  we have a  criteria such as  Simple, clear, and common words: Use words or phrases that are most-frequently used for the current context, unless it will result in a loss of meaning or clarity. 
 
   
 
  The base criteria (not the exception) is nicely testable. we have defined any terms we thought  that look ambiguous.. We have simple  algorithms and word list with the most common words/meaning in different languages are available, and there are even tools in the translation business for making new word lists for different languages. 
 
   
 
   The hard to test parts is the exception.  IE "unless it will result in a loss of meaning or clarity”
 [Jason] I agree that this is difficult. However, is it significantly more problematic than checking whether the text alternative for an image satisfactorily characterizes the graphical content? Part of the problem with this proposal is that it would apply to all of the text used in Web content, leading to a very large quality assurance issue in the writing of new Web sites, and a huge evaluation process for non-trivial, existing sites.
 When WCAG 2.0 was under development, it was argued, justifiably, that the language used in some Web content could not be changed. For example, a Web site offering legislation or court judgments must faithfully reflect the original text, without altering the language used. I think it’s clear that any requirement for simple language, if it belongs in WCAG at all, must be placed at Level AAA, unless it can be satisfied  by providing a simpler summary or simpler language alternative to the primary content alongside it.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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.