- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:58:38 +0100
- To: "Matthew Smith" <matt@kbc.net.au>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:54:12 +0100, Matthew Smith <matt@kbc.net.au> wrote: > In fact, this could be a handy test; if language is hard to translate to > a foreign one, maybe the original version needs review. (I will refrain > from making any references to the inaccessible language of WCAG 2, oops > - I just did...) Yeah, this is always the case. My classic test for 14.1 in WCAG 1 is to auto-translate to some other language and back a couple of times. If it comes through clean, then you are unambiguous enough for auto-parsing your semantics, and if it doesn't you are normal but can learn to make it work. It isn't perfect, but it is better than most tests I have found. It scales to content pitched at almost any level of required knowledge, without increasing grammatical complexity or grammatical ambiguity. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 11:58:59 UTC