Plain language - mandating active voice

I think there is a fundamental issue with all the plain language success criteria that have been proposed which has nothing to do with the availability (or lack of) of automated tools.

Closed issue link: Plain language (minimum) https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30
Plain language (All Content) https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/42
Plan languagwe (AA): https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/plain-language-aa.html

Instructions:
I have great concerns that mandating active voice is far too rigid.
Take these examples that use the passive voice in (hypothetical) instruction type texts:

* If you are asked in a mail to pay an invoice, be careful. Often this is an attempt to trick you.
* If you are bitten by a dog, see a doctor immediately.
* If you are bullied at work, call the helpline number below.

The good thing about using passive voice here is that the main person (you, the one receiving the advice) is clearly in focus grammatically as being the subject of the sentence. 
Of course you can rephrase these examples by introducing the implied subjects of the action ("If a dog bites you, see a doctor immediately.") but arguably this does not improve and may in many cases complicate the sentence.

Take another example that could appear in an instructional text:

* Not much is known about this disease.

Turning this example into active voice "Scientists do not know much about this disease" arguably makes the sentence more complex because it forces the appearance of a subject that is not helpful - the same might be true not just for scientists but also for doctors, policy makers etc.

So what is the problem? Testers identifying passive voice may feel encouraged to fail content if they are not sure that one of the exceptions applies.

Also:

* Exceptions may never be exhaustive - it will often be difficult to determine whether or not an exception applies.
* It is difficult to determine whether "a passive voice or a tense (other than present tense) is clearer" in the absence of user testing (and it might still be inconclusive after testing).
* It is not at all trivial to correctly identify a passive clause - Pullum shows many cases where even professional advisers got it wrong. http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/%7Egpullum/passive_loathing.html

Controls:
In yesterday's telco, I have emphasized that we already have two 2.0 success criteria that together should cover what plain language applied to controls is supposed to achieve for sighted users (another couple of SCs, 1.1.1 and 4.1.2, mainly adress non-visual use cases):

* 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions: Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input. (Level A) 
* 2.4.6 Headings and Labels: Headings and labels describe topic or purpose. (Level AA) 

I think we agreed in yesterday's telco that controls might therefore be taken out of the scope of this SC because of that, but that is up to the COGa TF to decide.

Detlev

--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 10:24:11 UTC