Re: Overlap of WCAG 2.2 and plain language

Hello Shawn,

Thank you so much for a quick and helpful reply!

I am nervous to be sending my information out into the world, but as I
believe so deeply in the mission of digital accessibility (especially
living in France where they are painfully slow on the uptake), I am hoping
that at least one morsel of my research will be of use.

I will reroute my information and cross my fingers. :) Thanks again!

Best,
Ashley Miller



On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 9:54 PM Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Ashley,
>
> Thank you for sharing your information.
>
> Please note that WCAG 2.2 is closed for changes now. We have other open
> projects where your information can be beneficial, and I encourage you to
> send it to those lists:
> * Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force <
> public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> * WCAG 3 <public-silver@w3.org>
>
> Best,
> ~Shawn
> <www.w3.org/People/Shawn>
>
>
>
> On 18-Jul-23 8:32 AM, Ashley E. Miller wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > After spending the last year looking at the potential overlap of plain
> language and digital accessibility, I do believe I found some
> information that may be of interest to the WCAG 2.2 editors.
> >
> > I have attached my master's thesis as it serves as the backbone of what
> information is to follow, but after looking at the principles, guidelines
> and success criteria of the WCAG 2.2 in comparison to the draft version of
> PL ISO 24495-1:2022, I found some information relevant to the forward
> movement of accessibility.
> >
> > Pages 54-58 of my thesis shed light on the potential area of change:
> >
> > Readability is different from comprehensibility and also at the root of
> a detrimental difference in mindset found between the WCAG 2.2 and the PL
> ISO whose standards are both trying to fulfill the goal of “understandable”
> content.
> >
> >
> > Currently the WCAG 2.2 appears to be relying more so on readability than
> comprehensibility in its quest for fair and equitable digital information,
> leaving users without the right tools for true access.
> >
> >
> > Relying mainly on reading level is in opposition to the current
> practices in place that factor in comprehensibility (or the true “access”)
> in regards to digital accessibility, thus defying the idea that the
> information, if readable, is usable. Suffice it to say, it is still
> progress to focus on readability in regards to digital content, but by
> focusing on readability alone, it fails to fully aid in the UNCRPD’s
> “environmental barriers” being dissolved –less so on a societal level like
> in the case of the mental model, but in this case, on a conceptual,
> intangible level.
> >
> >
> > The use of plain language is one way to help dissolve the barrier that
> comprehensibility can create, but its use must be a choice, and one that
> currently involves extra time and training.
> >
> >
> > I am honored to have shared a bit of my findings with you, and commend
> you on all the effort you are putting into making this world more
> accessible. Should you have further questions or comments, I would be
> honored to answer.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ashley Miller
> >
> >
>