Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.

> What happens with multi-language pages - is it 1500 words per language
present?

I continue to have serious reservations here around internationalization:
this proposed SC currently feels very "western-centric" in its approach.

Mike Pluke previously noted 5 languages (English, French, German, Italian
and Spanish), but what of other languages? (and which "Spanish"?) What of
Asian-based languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.) or Russian, Arabic
or Hebrew languages (to name a few others)? How does this proposed SC scale
there?

As others have noted as well, which 1500 words (or phrases) are we using as
*The Standard*? Is the intent to leave that list undefined at this time?
Why?

What happens when variants of a language 'conflict'? (For example, in North
America a car has a "trunk" and runs on "gas", while in the UK an
automobile has a "boot" and runs on "petrol".. which of those words makes
the 1500-word list? The US version, the UK version, both, or neither?)

My fear is that in an effort to be effective here, we are also being overly
prescriptive. Additionally, while I look forward to future technologies
assisting us with this need, reliance on them for the proposed SC is
counter to how we should be writing SC - as Gregg notes both members of
this WG as well as non-experts need to be able to use our emergent WCAG 2.1
to actually test WCAG 2.1 in a measurable and repeatable fashion today.

We need to be standardizing Requirements and Success Criteria, not specific
solutions attached to hard-to-define variables.

JF

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Although the issue was closed in github, I've put more comments on this
> topic there since the context is clearer and discussion has been ongoing
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30
> 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:        "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> To:        Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
> Cc:        "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>,
> "GLWAI Guidelines WG org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2017-02-20 05:48 AM
> Subject:        Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thank you Gregg. I think we are getting closer
>
> Note that the Sc is only for *instructions, labels, navigational
> elements, and error messages which require a response to continue. *
>
> SO there is no need to build a whole website along these lines. (That
> would only be a AAA conformance level)
>
>  Also if  you can comply by using a title tag or coga-easylang, will make
> it much easier and less restrictive
>
> I agree we will need a better term or clear definition of current context.
> hopefully then we will get there.
>
> Any suggestions for reworking the current context part?
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> *LinkedIn* <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, *Twitter*
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 19:40:13 +0200 *Gregg C
> Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu <greggvan@umd.edu>>*wrote ----
>
>    - *Simple, clear, and common words:*Use the the most common 1500 words
>    or phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the are
>    most-common form to refer to the concept in the current context.
>
>
>
> This is a very interesting definition.  By adding context — it makes
> content self adjust.   For example — a physics site could have physics
> terms on it - which would clearly not be plain language.
>
> My only concern as an author would be that several key things are not
> defined.
>
> 1)  what does “current context” mean.      If my website is the current
> context — it means everything passes because those are the terms in my
> context.    If the context is ‘science websites’  then I do not know what
> the most common terms are for them — nor do I know what the definition of
> ‘science website’ is.   (That is — if you define current context as being X
> context  then  X needs to be defined — and I need to know what the common
> words are for that context.
>
> 2) the most common 1500 words includes lots of prepositions, and articles
>  (Most or all of them)  but only a small percentage of nouns.    Very hard
> to write a website with only the most common 1500 words.    (I did word
> frequency studies in my earlier years)
>
>
> I think the approach is clever — but still leads to an untestable SC since
> there is no way for the author  (or for testers) to know what “current
> context” means.         (and you can’t write WCAG with the most common 1500
> words)
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> *greggvan@umd.edu* <greggvan@umd.edu>
>
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2017, at 3:33 AM, lisa.seeman <*lisa.seeman@zoho.com*
> <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks
>
> Continuing the conversation on simple language, to address concern with
> testability (as user testing is not acceptable)  I want to suggest the
> following change to the clause on common words:
>
> Change:
>
>    - *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. This includes not using abbreviations, words,
>    or phrases, unless they are the common form to refer to concepts for
>    beginners. Where word frequencies are known for the context, they can be
>    used.
>
>    to:
>    - *Simple, clear, and common words:*Use the the most common 1500 words
>    or phrases or, provide words, phrases or abbreviations that are the are
>    most-common form to refer to the concept in the current context.
>
>
>    The scope is* instructions, labels, navigational elements, and error
>    messages which require a response to continue.*
>
>    * Technique* would include:
>       - Using a title tag to provide a simple language equivalent
>       - Using the coga-easylang attribute (prefered)
>       - Providing extra text via personalization semantics.
>       - Using simple words
>    Technology support includes: word frequency generator for a given
>    context, (reads the URI's list and generates a word frequency list),
>    existing word frequency lists, checker to test that words are in the most
>
>    There are also a list of exceptions that is quite long - issues 30 -
>    and we are proposing to add a exception for long instructions (as per
>    previous email) We could add an exception for user testing, but amazingly
>    that is controversial.
>
>    The thinking is: the most common 1500 words is really trivial for
>    testing tools to find and generate a warning. However using the most
>    comment form to refer to something in the current context will, *in
>    this scope *, take care of  the clarity issue and is also  testable
>    with the tools above.
>
>    please do not bring up issues that are addressed in the exceptions or
>    are out of the scope.
>
>
>
>    All the best
>
>    Lisa Seeman
>
> *LinkedIn* <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, *Twitter*
>    <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion