- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:41:37 -0500
- To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF5D6CB347.B0E61AFB-ON86257EC2.004EDB8F-86257EC2.0050B7AB@us.ibm.com>
I agree that 'complex ideas' are not the problem. Nor that its a big problem to explain them in simple language. However, the problem is to be able to identify when the explanation is "simple enough", when it is even more simple than the previous explanation (e.g. is it simpler?), and the biggest challenge is to do that without a human involved. How can it be objectively tested? Doesn't human judgment naturally introduce bias and subjectivity? We can use Chaals' recent explanation as an example: Simpler language: Explaining complex ideas is difficult. Explaining them with simple language is more difficult. But complex ideas can be explained in simple language. Thousands of very good teachers do that every day. For most people, understanding complicated explanations is hard. Even if they can understand the idea that someone is explaining. Complex language: (alternately: Conceptual integrity failure in interpersonal communication is frequently consequent upon inadequate realization vis-a-vis the linguistic transmission medium rather than the abstract object inherently overtaxing the recipient's cognitive capacity?) How can a machine tell that the Simpler example is indeed simpler than the complex alternative example? We had this debate several year (decade?) ago. What has changed? Back then we could count the number of 3 syllable words, we could count the number of uncommon words, we could use Microsoft Word's "Reading Level" tool, etc. Is there now some new standard that can be objectively measured by an open algorithm or tool? When would our criteria fail to be met? What content is exempt ( e.g. an index, a table of content, left nav, complimentary info tagged with ARIA region mark-up? etc.) Would lawyers agree to have their content objectively measured? I love the idea of regulating lawyers by the way. When is it equally inaccessible to everyone? Does that concept even come into play with cognitive disabilities? Is this topic part of the WAI Cognitive Task Force? As most new success criteria, it is itself a complex issue to resolve. ____________________________________________ Regards, Phill Jenkins, IBM Accessibility
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 14:42:24 UTC