- From: Jukka Korpela <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:58:26 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
goliver@accease.com wrote: > Anyone ever seriously tested for compliance of an > entire web site to 14.1 [1]? The requirement "Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content." can is fundamentally qualitative, so the question arises how one could _test_ against it. In fact, the Core Techniques document gives a very useful checklist for it at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#comprehension which even refers to the Gunning Fog index. It would also be possible to develop indexes that estimate the simplicity of word usage, i.e. whether the words are commonly understood. But any attempts to test for compliance using such measures would meet the question what the site's content demands. You can hardly require that a research report on magnetohydrodynamics must have Gunning Fog index smaller than 7, whereas for a site that tells about municipial services such a requirement would be quite adequate - though the limit should preferably be smaller. Undoubtedly, if you take a Web page and show that some readability indexes for it suggest that it's really demanding, the author will respond that the site's content imposes certain requirements. For different types of pages and sites, it might be possible and useful to impose specific, objectively computable criteria for complying with 14.1, e.g. via local regulation or recommendations. It's debatable how this should be done, especially whether we should start with mild requirements or with recommendations that set a challenging goal. Unfortunately, readability measures have mostly been developed for English only. For this and other reasons, quite a lot of "tests on humans" would be needed: just ask different people to read the texts and try to find out how they understood it. Preferably include people with _different_ problems as regards to reading texts (e.g., children, old people, mentally retarded people, immigrants, etc.). This is expensive, time-consuming, and not objective, but it should be done for the most important pages at least. -- Jukka Korpela TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehittämiskeskus ry Finnish Information Society Development Centre Salomonkatu 17 A, 10th floor, FIN - 00100 HELSINKI, FINLAND Phone: +358 9 4763 0397 Fax: +358 9 4763 0399 http://www.tieke.fi jukka.korpela@tieke.fi
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 06:57:46 UTC