Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the RDWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.


EasyToReadOntheWeb Draft Report

From Research and Development Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

NOTE: This is an internal page that is not yet ready for public review. 

Please do not distribute the URI yet.

Research Report on Easy to Read on the Web

NOTE: This is work in progress.

[front matter as defined by W3C]

Abstract

TO BE FINISHED AT THE END OF THE PROCESS.

"Easy-to-Read on the Web" focuses on ongoing and future research and concepts of web usability for the biggest possible user group including people with cognitive disabilities and other groups experiencing problems with the language in use in a globalised context. Besides aspects of technical accessibility in terms of being able to reach and retrieve information, "Easy-to-Read on the Web" puts the emphasis on broadest possible readability, understandability and memorability. Concepts used and discussed

  • Text Customisation (Layout, structure) see [ ]
  • Adaptation of Wording ("Plain language")
  • Translation in specialized wording spaces of end user groups ("Easy to Read")
  • Symbol and picture annotation for better understanding
  • Translation in specialized symbol systems or symbol languages

Discussion on how to include this a) as general requirements for any mainstream content author and b) specialized individual or group services.

Easy to read is addressed in elaborated guidelines and recommendations. Also standards like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) mention readability. The challenge lies within the fact that such guidelines have to be updated in terms of addressing the needs of different target groups and in particular in their take-up in practice regarding requests towards mainstream web authors and content providers and/or specialised services translating content into easy to read on demand. For all these approaches research and development of methods and tools is needed to allow a better, easier and cost effective implementation. There is a need to better understand these challenges and to develop a roadmap to guide further research and development activities.

This note presents the major findings of a symposium, which was organised by the Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) to bring researchers and practitioners together to discuss these challenges and possible solutions. This symposium brought together researchers and practitioners to discuss these challenges and possible solutions, to help develop a roadmap for future research and development in the field.

Status of the document

[mostly W3C boilerplate] @@ invitation for public review & comments -- specific questions for consideration

Introduction

Globalized multi-author / multi-user and multilanguage systems like the "World Wide Web" demand for information that is used, read and understood cross borders and cultures as well as by the biggest possible (and in most cases unknown) user group. Main drivers to make the Web and its information accessible and usable are economic considerations (need to open up / serve new clientele and penetrate global markets) as well as (trans-) national legislation. Electronic media provide flexible and adaptable access to information offering a unique potential both for acquiring information and communication. The Web plays a unique role in these developments and is both, the driver of globalization and its tool, a central means and tool for globalization and its “universality and access by everyone regardless of a disability has been an important aspect of the Web since its beginning”. (Tim Berners-Lee, Director World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)).

The UN-Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities [1] and a growing number of international and national legislation underline that access to information in easy to read format is a matter of democracy and inclusion. International studies outline that in most countries a percentage of up to 25 and higher of the adult population does not reach the level of literacy or reading skill expected after nine years of formal education. In several countries, this figure is as high as 40-50 percent. [International Adult Literacy Surveys (IALS), 1998]

Studies on adult literacy:

Analysing these studies outlines the main target groups benefiting from easy to read due to reduced reading skills:

  • People with cognitive disabilities [W3C/WAI: Diversity of the Web; Diversity of abilities; Cognitive and neurological, online January 2013: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/diversity#learning] related to functionality such as [WebAIM: Cognitive Disabilities, online January 2013: http://webaim.org/articles/cognitive/]
    • Memory
    • Problem solving (conceptualizing, planning, sequencing, reasoning and judging thoughts and actions)
    • Attention (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - ADHD) and awareness
    • Reading, linguistic, and verbal comprehension (Dyslexia)
    • Visual Comprehension
    • Mental health disabilities
  • People with low language skills including people who are not fluent in a language
  • People with auditory disabilities [W3C/WAI: Diversity of the Web; Diversity of abilities; Auditory, online January 2013: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/diversity#auditory] that impact reading of written language

Progress has been made over the last decades in terms of guidelines, methods and tools to make the Web more inclusive for different stakeholder groups including people with disabilities. In the domain of inclusion and participation of people with disabilities the focus thereby has been first of all on accessibility in a more technical sense allowing people adapting and customising the display and interaction on standard devices or by applying Assistive Technology. The aspect of the quality of the content in terms of its readability, understandability and usability seemed to be postponed due to the more fundamental and pressing questions of providing basic access in this more physical or technical sense. This is reflected, as webAIM outlines in their studies on research and development activities in the accessibility domain, in the fact that there has been little research in the field of information technology and people with intellectual and cognitive disabilities at all [WebAIM: Evaluating Cognitive Web Accessibility. Available at: http://webaim.org/articles/evaluatingcognitive. Last accessed January 2013]. This prioritization is underlined by Looms [Design Models for Media Accessibility, Journal of Designing in China, October 2012] when he outlines a hierarchical structure in his inclusion pyramid of digital media amongst

  1. Availability
  2. Accessibility
  3. Usability
  4. Digital Literacy.

Although all four aspects have to be addressed to reach accessibility and usability in a holistic and not only technical sense, availability and accessibility, what is to be read in a more technical sense of getting hold of the information, is first, as the later have to based on these. The mainstream term and concept of usability [ISO 9241-11] includes and puts emphasis on aspects like effectiveness, efficiency, learnability/guessability, memorability, error rates, /safety/security/privacy/trust, reliability, satisfaction what goes beyond technical access to content and questions if users reach their goals in an easy appropriate manner. Also in usability an initial priority on more technical aspects can be found.

Introductory concepts of usability including readability:

  • Shackel, B., 1991. Usability-Context, Framework, Design and Evaluation. In Shackel, B., Richardson, S (eds.). Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Hix, D. and H.R. Hartson, 1993. Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product and Process. John Wiley and Sons
  • Preece, J., Y. Rogers, H. Sharp, D. Benyon, S. Holland and T. Carey, 1994. Human Computer Interaction. Addison Wesley
  • Wixon, D. and C. Wilson, 1997. The Usability Engineering Framework for Product Design and Evaluation. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Helander, M.G. et al., Elsevier North-Holland
  • Shneiderman, B., 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley
  • Constantine, L.L. and L.A.D. Lockwood, 1999. Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centred Design. Addison-Wesley, New York.
  • Jakob Nielsen. [2]


Accessibility is a key term in the inclusion pyramid and also usability includes it as a central concept. W3C/WAI from the beginning did understand accessibility in this much broader sense of web usability. [Shadi, any reference??] With the term and effort “usable accessibility” [Henry, S.; Abou-Zahra, S.: Usable Web Accessibility, Special Thematic Session at ICCHP, online January 2013: http://www.icchp.org/node/234, http://www.icchp.org/programme/friday#stan1] a clear focus is put on these aspects going beyond a pure technical meaning of getting access to the content. The Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines (WCAG2.0) demand for making content and web pages understandable as the third of four principles further detailed in guidelines and techniques for making content readable and understandable. [W3C/WAI: G153: Making the text easier to read, online January 2013: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G153] W3C/WAI enforces the efforts in elaborating these aspects of accessibility in the broadest sense possible and intends to better address the needs of the target groups outlined. With the symposium on Easy to Read on the Web the work on guidelines, techniques and tools should be pushed forward by analyzing how far they cover the needs and interests of these target groups in the state of the art and by finding ways to improve them. The symposium asked for research and development to raise awareness and increase the level of accessibility in practice. The Easy to Read on the Web symposium focused on sharing research-based experiences, including examples, tools, concepts, and ideas, on how to make information on the Web easier to understand by different audiences. The symposium explored the user needs and state of the art in research, development, and practice to contribute to a common understanding of easy-to-read on the Web. It encourages the development of better guidance, support, and tools for developers, designers, and users, and to inform researchers, standards developers, and policy makers on how to better address easy-to-read on the Web. In particular it analyzed how to better connect, elaborate, and integrate the user needs in the existing web accessibility guidelines and techniques. The main objectives of the Easy to Read on the Web symposium were to:

  • Outline and share a definition of easy-to-read
  • Describe, define, and compare the needs of different user groups regarding easy-to-read
  • Analyze the current state of the art (guidelines, examples, tools, concepts, and ideas) in the field of easy-to-read on the Web and to propose how to make information on the Web easier to understand as well as discussing easy-to-read as an aspect of mainstream, design for all or individualized adaptations
  • Integrate easy-to-read into web accessibility guidelines and standards
  • Provide guidance to standards developers and policy makers on how to better consider and address the user needs
  • Encourage the continued development of tools, techniques, and implementations to support people with disabilities
  • Identify lack of research and encourage further research on easy-to-read on the Web

Beyond these core objectives the symposium asked for contributions addressing questions like tool support, research and development in linguistics, language technologies, and natural language processing as well as concepts and models for implementation of easy-to-read in practice.


Background and Related Work

Providing information in a way that can be understood by the majority of users is an essential aspect of accessibility for people with disabilities. This domain is commonly referred to "Easy to Read" including as the main domains of research:

Rules, guidelines, and recommendations for authoring text

MORE REFERENCES HERE Considerable work has been done to provide rules, guidelines and recommendations how to best address Easy to read for people with cognitive disabilities and some first approaches, tools, and heuristics have emerged. [Sbattella, L., Tedesco, R. (2008) The authoring of highly accessible texts. In: Proceedings of Adaptive Content Processing Conference (ACP 08), Amsterdam, Netherlands - aus paper 8] MORE HERE This includes the development of different guidelines, rules, and recommendations such as those included in WCAG2.0 [W3C/WAI: G153: Making the text easier to read, online January 2013: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G153] or others [Inclusion Europe: Information for all, European Standards for making information easy to read and understand, online January 2013: http://cop.health-rights.org/files/c/1/c1fbaaeb17db47800782d8721bd8b0db.pdf, IFLA. (2010) Guidelines for easy-to-read materials. International Federation of Library Association and Institutions IFLA Professional Reports 120. Revision by Misako Nomura, Gyda Skat Nielsen and Bror Tronbacke]. Due to the availability of end user devices efforts have been made to enrich the quality and understandability of texts both for easy to read and plain language by integrating multimedia. Guidelines have been updated improved considerably. [DuBay, W. H. (2004) The Principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information. aus paper 9] However, more research is needed to better understand the accessibility needs of the users and the needs of content authors in practice, to analyze the different approaches and possibilities of harmonisation, and to propose a way forward in providing better techniques and tools for such services. In parallel, other more mainstream oriented research fields share similar goals or include complementary development:

  • Research in usability on the Web contributed to the concept of Plain Language [Wikipedia, online February 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language] and the development of different methods and tools to measure readability like Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Wiener Sachtextformel, Dale-Chall formula, Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning fog index (FOG) [Jaan Mikk: Textbook: Research and Writing. Lang, Frankfurt u. a. 2000].
  • Usability research also provides a wide spectrum of guidelines and methods to make the Web easier to use, such as design guidelines for homepage usability [Nielsen, J.; Tahir, M. Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed, New Riders, Indianapolis 2002] and international user interfaces [Nielsen, J., International User Interfaces, Wiley, Chichester 1996]. These invite investigation regarding overlap of general Web usability with the needs of users with cognitive disabilities and other target groups outlined above. Approaches like Globish [3] and text normalisation (Han, B., Baldwin, B. (2011) Lexical normalisation of short text messages: Makn sens a #twitter. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 368–378, Portland, Oregon, USA, June. Association for Computational Linguistics) aus paper 6]

Tools for checkinig and (re)structuring information

[MORE REFERENCES HERE] The first and still frequently used support for people with reading difficulties is human re-reading including explanations and interpretation. There is a strong need to support this time and resource demanding process and allow more self determined and independent access to text. The domains of linguistics and language technologies, including Natural Language Processing (NLP), have made significant progress in grammar & style-checking (sometimes called Controlled Language) [Fuchs, N., E. (ed.): Controlled Natural Language, International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, New York, Heidlberg 2010], translation [Chiang, D.: Grammars for Language and Genes, Springer’s series in Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, Springer, New York, Heidlberg, 2012], annotation and enhancement [Nikolova, S.; Boyd-Graber, J.; Fellbaum, Ch.: Collecting Semantic Similarity Ratings to Connect Concepts in Assistive Communication Tools, in: Mehler, A. et al (ed.): Modeling, Learning, and Processing of Text Technological Data Structures] and summarizing [E. Hovy, “Automated Text Summarization,” chapter The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, pp. 583–598, 2005; Nenkova, A.; McKeown, K.: A Survey of Text Summarization Techniques, in: Aggarwal, C., C.; Zhai, CH.: Mining Text Data, Springer, NewYork, Heidlberg 2012]. Compelling research and sophisticated tools have been developed to support content authors and users [McCarthy, P., M.; Boonthum, CH. (eds.): Applied Natural Language Processing and Content Analysis: Advances in Identification, Investigation and Resolution. Information Science Reference, 2011], and there is apparent mutual benefit of further investigating the deployment of these tools in the domain of easy-to-read. On top of that, due to the fact that the web is more and more a place to produce content, interact, share and communicate [Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., and Zickuhr, K. (2010) Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx], there is a strong need for meta-workflows supporting content providers in producing easy to read content and providing navigation support or guidance. It is outlined for the target groups of this symposium that simply translating text might be not enough [Karreman, J., Van der Geest, Th., & Buursink, E. (2007). Accessible website content guidelines for users with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20, 510-518.]. Guidance and assistance when accessing and navigating through a web page is needed. This includes in particular the need of providing cues on what to read next as the reading experience differs more and more from traditional sequential access and asks the user to choose.

Enriching content with images and multimedia

MORE REFERENCES HERE Research and development in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC, International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC)) provides a related set of resources on user requirements, guidelines, methods, techniques and tools for accessing information and the use of language in written or audio format, including the use of symbol systems and symbolic languages [Fager, S. et al: Access to augmentative and alternative communication: New technologies and clinical decision-making, in: Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, Volume 5, Number 1, IOS Press, Amsterdam 2012] [MORE HERE]. Another important aspect is the availability of definitions and descriptions of complex terms and concepts. Although this information might exist as glossaries or dictionaries and approaches like Latent Semantic Analysis (Landauer, T. and Dumais, S. (1997) A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.) and Concept Coding Framework [Lundälv, M., Derbring, S. (2012). Towards General Cross-Platform CCF Based Multi-Modal Language Support. In: Miesenberger, K.; Karshmer, A.; Klaus, J.; Zagler, W., eds. Proceedings of Computers Helping People with Special Needs, 13th International Conference, ICCHP 2012, Linz, Austria, July 11-13, 2012. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 261-268. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-31534-3_40] might provide the basis for development work, there is a need for research how such annotations seamlessly integrate into the user experience when accessing a web page. Many of these approaches origin primarily from research and development for people with speech disabilities but have a strong relation to the target groups addressed here, in particular as speech disabilities might also be caused by cognitive disabilities or a complex set of physical and cognitive disabilities with a strong impact on language learning, understanding and usage. Due to this research, experiences, and tools from this domain might be beneficial for the wider audience of easy-to-read. [REFERENCES HERE]

Text-audio integration

Reading text to people for many users is a first very efficient step for better access. [Blattner, M. M. and Glinert, E. P. (1996) Multimodal Integration. IEEE MultiMedia 3, 4 (Dec. 1996), 14-24. DOI: 10.1109/93.556457] Access to written information for blind and visually impaired people as well as people with other reading disabilities such as dyslexia significantly progressed over the last years. The possibility to switch or the parallel use of both formats – written and audio – and the features to adapt both kinds of display also might considerably contribute to Easy to Read for several of the mentioned target groups. AT for blind and visually handicapped people (e.g. screenreader, speech output, screen enlargement, audio description) but also systems and services of making information accessible like e.g. Digital Accessible Information System – DAISY; www.daisy.org) might contribute to Easy to Read but do need considerations in terms of usability of the applications.

Captioning

Captioning what is first of all used as a translation service for people not speaking the language used for an audio or video source, but also for hearing impaired and deaf people: But also descriptive services for blind and visually handicapped people can be seen as a source for Easy to Read. A body of knowledge has been brought forward on how to design captions to address the needs by the target audience of the symposium including recommendations and guidelines regarding length, display and structuring of captions. [Media Access Group: Captioning and Video Description for the Web http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/mag/pdfs/marketing_web.captioning.pdf; Centre of Excellence in Universal Design: Subtitles for people who are deaf or hard of hearing http://www.universaldesign.ie/useandapply/ict/irishnationalitaccessibilityguidelines/digitaltvequipmentandservices/guidelinesfordigitaltvequipmentandservice48; W3C/WAI: Timed Text Markup Language (TTML) 1.0 [4]

Subtitling guidelines references http://www.universaldesign.ie/useandapply/ict/irishnationalitaccessibilityguidelines/digitaltvequipmentandservices/guidelinesfordigitaltvequipmentandservice45 DTV4All project BBC, 2009, Online Subtitling Editorial Guidelines V1.1.

Designing layout to meet these requirements

A related symposium addresses the specific topic of Text Customization for Readability. The easy-to-read on the Web Symposium is planned in close connection with this Symposium to avoid overlap and facilitate exchange. But still, besides a growing awareness to orient content on the web towards plain language, easy-to-read on the Web today is first of all driven by day to day practice of translating information (on demand) [ ]. Easy to Read is often understood as a specialized service asking for translation into the language space of very specific user groups asking the involvement and co-development with representatives of a user group. Although Easy to Read guidelines are often addressed as a requirement towards mainstream, the proposed workflow and demand for user involvement seems to ask for individualized translations due to the specific needs of user groups [ ]. Research is needed on how to best implement easy to read both at mainstream level and as a specialized service.

Current Research

The papers presented at the Easy to Read on the Web symposium addressed several of the mentioned aspects which could be grouped along three domains:

  1. Easy to read guidelines and impact on WCAG
  2. Tools for e2r
  3. Workflow, Process and Services for e2r

In general all contributions share the understanding that there is a strong need for increased awareness for Easy to Read both in terms of general understandability and usability of content and specialized and individualized adaptation (translation) for specific user groups. MORE HERE

A) Easy to read guidelines and impact on WCAG

Kerstin to add, please

B) Tools for e2r

One key aspect in terms of impact of Easy to Read on Web Accessibility is the availability of tools supporting practice [ ]. Two domains are outlined where tools are needed for supported or even automated implementation of Easy to Read:

  1. For mainstream developers, designers and other stakeholders to implement Easy to Read
  2. For specialists addressing the needs of target groups like people with cognitive disabilities in terms of translation in specific language and cultural spaces

The following papers outline important aspects of such tools and what concepts are addressed in R&D. A particular focus has been given to how WCAG and other guidelines and techniques as such tools have to rely on well defined, as much as possible measurable guidelines and success criteria.

  • Bridging the Gap between Pictographs and Natural Language (Vincent Vandeghinste. Centre for Computational Linguistics, University of Leuven)

This paper outlines a system for pictograph communication and how a corpus of words for translation in pictographs has been developed allowing an easier and better translation. This paper relates the question of easy to read and understand to symbol usage.

  • Reporting Simply: A Lexical Simplification Strategy for Enhancing Text Accessibility (Biljana Drndareviç, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Sanja Štajner, University of Wolverhampton, Horacio Saggion, Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

This paper discusses automated text simplification and relates it how applying such methodologies for Easy to Read on the Web. Based on examples out of the international news and culture domain it underlines the limits of rule-based lexical approaches.

  • Improving the Readability of User-generated Content in Web Games Using Text Normalisation (Alejandro Mosquera, University of Alicante, Paloma Moreda, University of Alicante

This paper presents the TENOR system supporting readers with cognitive disabilities in accessing user generated content on the web by searching and providing alternatives for words.

  • Easy-to-read text characteristics across genres (Katarina Mühlenbock. DART, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mats Lundälv. DART, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sandra Derbring. DART, Sahlgrenska University Hospital)

This paper proposes to include text characterization across different genres for improving the level of readability and usability and to reach Easy to Read.

  • Calculating text complexity during the authoring phase (Antonio Bianchi, Politecnico di Milano - MultiChancePoliTeam, Licia Sbattella, Politecnico di Milano - Dip. di Elettronica e Informazione, Roberto Tedesco, Politecnico di Milano – MultiChancePoliTeam)

This paper presents the tool SPARTA2 which is an authoring support tool providing a numeric estimations of the complexity of texts and warnings/advices about phrase structures. It uses well established indices and uses a sound approach to integrate it into different authoring experiences (plug-in). This tool provides a very practical approach to address the text complexity aspect of Easy to Read.

  • Evaluation of Terminology Labeling Impact over Readability (Vasile Topac, Politehnica University of Timisoara, Vasile Stoicu-Tivadar, Politehnica University of Timisoara)

This paper presents important findings from Natural Language Processing (NLP) for the purpose of easy-to-read. It highlights the need to balance between formulating text in a way that would lose meaning or perceived authority versus being more widely understood. It uses the medical domain as an example for simplifying its terminology. The concept let the reader estimate to be applicable to many other domains and situations as well.

  • MIA - My Internet Assistant for successfully reading and using web content (Thea van der Geest, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, Jana Becker, MSc University of Twente, The Netherlands)

This paper tackles two important aspect of easy-to-read, namely that the requirements tend to be highly individual and that comprehension is not only based on the text but also on the layout and instructions provided. The paper introduces the tool MIA that acts as an agent to provide personalized guidance depending on the actual needs of the user, and analyses the benefits of this tool.

===C)Workflow, Process and Services for e2r

  • Michael Schaten provided a contribution on "Accessibility 2.0", a PhD theses dealing with a social web application that was or better is designed together with people with cognitive disabilities already in the very beginning of the software development process.

Additionally, a community built up during this activity will compose explanations or easier to understand alternatives on "complex words, terms and phrases" to overcome "traditional" barriers for this target group using web 2.0 applications to a glossary service.

  • Klaus Miesenberger presented a paper on "including E2R, legibility and Readability into web engineering" where he discussed together with his co-authors the feasibility and a possible structure to include "Plain Language or Easy to Read" into the process and workflow of web engineering combining the inherent workflow used for Plain Language and easy to read to the meta-workflow of authoring and designing for the web in general.
  • Coming back to social web applications, our third panelist, Timo Övermark presents in his contribution "Social networking Service for People with Cognitive or Speech and Language Impairments" findings concerning mainstream social networking services, their obstacles and possibilities to overcome them – building up on a project from finnish FAIDD and Papunet network service unit with the goal to create an easy-to use social networking service for people with IDD (intellectual and developmental disability) as well as SLI (specific language impairment).
  • Our last panelist, Clayton Lewis, aimed in his contribution "Reading Adaptations for People with Cognitive Disabilities: Opportunities" together with his co-author to bring to our symposium a number of opportunities for research that may lead to ways to adapt textual content to make it easier to read for the target group.

Emerging Themes and Roadmap

More research is needed to better understand the needs of the users, to analyze and compare the different approaches, to come to a common definition, and to propose a way forward in providing more comprehensive access to language on the Web.

MORE Out of discussion notes

  • Need of a “Easy to Read Suite”: Guidelines, tools, examples, …
  • Analysis of language contexts and transferability of tools and experiences
  • Clear understanding of mainstream requirements and specialized services
  • How to make WCAG 2.0 more concisely related to Easy-to-Read?
  • How to formulate guidelines which can be followed and implemented efficiently and supported by tools?

Questions

  • Are tools to support Easy-to-Read and Plain Language in practice sufficient in terms of a) covering areas and b) intended user groups?
  • Do tools support transferability into other languages, cultural contexts and application scenarios (e.g. legal, medical, technical, ... information)?
  • E2r: Mainstream task or specialized service
    • Is it possible and/or reasonable to simplify texts or information by just implementing standard rules and guidelines (e.g. European Standard on easy to read information) to be easily used and understood by every possible user or
    • Is successful information just a matter of custom-fitting for the audience / target group and standards might only consist of standardised workflows including extensive user testing?
  • Are users (to be) required to learn while working / reading / using information, documents and/or websites?
  • Are common standards and guidelines concerning "readability" possible on an international level or in any case to be adapted to individual linguistic needs and abilities?
  • To what extent is readability linked with the basic layout and the used / implemented navigation elements / navigation possibilities of a website? What elements are crucial and what layouts are most profitable and might be a good starting point for additional evaluations?
  • To what extent is readability linked with the "normative power of the factual" - what means that widespread popular websites and interaction schemes are "easy to use" even if the basic layout / structure / design is not supportive (following research, rules and guidelines - e.g. Facebook)
  • To what extent do basic accessibility rules and guidelines (e.g. no fixed fonts and font sizes) interfere with the necessities for a primary target group of easy to read text / information (e.g. people not knowing where to change these settings directly in the browser)?
  • Do existing web accessibility rules and guidelines already provide enough suggestions on design, layout and navigation that also support readability and usability for the biggest possible user group?
  • What are the most promising initiatives in automated (computer based) evaluation of readability / complexity of information / texts?
  • What is the state of the art in challenging R&D areas related to "text independent web" like
    • Automatic or supported text annotation (e.g. pictures, symbols, sounds)
    • Automatic or supported text translation in e2r or symbol languages
  • Having in mind that even basic accessibility features (e.g. alternative text for graphical content) that are introduced and mainstreamed for years but nevertheless implemented only to a very small extent in mainstream web pages - can we expect mainstream to implement e2r and what time line is possible for mainstream websites in terms of easy to be read and used information / text?
  • Models of implementing e2r in practice
    • Is e2r text designed for all or do we need specialised or individualised pages?
    • Can crowed sourcing approches to enrich text contribute to a solution? Social Accessibility Project (Takagi et al.2008), Webvisum, Amara (paper 3)
    • Should we bring up the idea of "special pages" in e2r again?
    • Is e2r a specialised service (on demand) or can we expect/force mainstream to implement it
    • Cost benefit analysis of different implementation approaches of e2r.
  • Guidelines
    • Presentations and analyses of approaches, guidelines, methods and tools in use to implement easy-to-read, for example comparative studies of guidelines and standards for easy-to-read and "plain language"
    • Analyses of the coverage of easy-to-read in existing web accessibility guidelines, standards, and recommendations
    • Working examples of information that is designed to be easier to read, especially in web applications such as social media, online shops, and blogs
    • Experiences with texts written by people with learning disabilities
  • User Needs: Analyses, definitions, and comparisons of the accessibility needs of different user groups regarding easy-to-read
  • Scope of easy-to-read on the Web:
    • Aspects and components of easy-to-read on the Web, such as language use, design, layout, navigation and their relation
    • Discussing easy-to-read on the Web as an aspect of mainstream "design for all" (for example use of "plain language") versus specialized or individualized easy-to-read adaptations
  • Internationalization:
    • Comparing national and transnational easy-to-read guidelines and standards for different languages and analyzing the potential of transfer and international standardization.
    • Exploring the characterization of easy-to-read guidelines in a language-independent way.

Contributions addressing the following or other topics are also welcome:

  • Tools: emphasize challenging research and development questions related to supported or automated development and use of content:
    • Readability evaluation
    • Text and layout adaptation
    • Easy to understand audio playback
    • Text annotation with standard or individual symbols, pictures and multimedia
    • Text translation into symbol language
    • Re-usable open source resource for creating easy-to-read checkers
  • Related fields contributing to easy-to-read such as:
    • Linguistics and language technologies including Natural Language Processing (i.e. conversation / communication analysis; how can language technologies contribute to an automatic provision of information that is easy to understand)
    • Readability, usability and the impact of "quasi standards" in interface design (for example social media) on easy-to-read
    • Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), for example the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC)
    • Text-audio integration (for example Digital Accessible Information System - DAISY)
    • Assistive Technologies for blind and partially sighted people (such as screen-reader, speech output, screen enlargement, audio description) and their potential to increase easy-to-read and easy to use information
    • Assistive Technologies for people with auditory disabilities (for example captioning, visual signing) and their potential to increase easy-to-read and easy to use information
  • Education:
    • How to teach and learn writing/designing easy-to-read
    • How to teach and how users can learn to make better use of information in easy-to-read
  • Cost benefit analysis of different implementation approaches of easy-to-read and feasibility of easy-to-read at large scale


FROM DISUCSSION

  • How might we increase awareness of the need for text customization, and the benefits?
  • What text customization functionality should be included in products in order to meet users' needs?
  • How can we improve discoverability and usability of text customization features in products?
  • How should text customization requirements be better addressed in accessibility guidelines, web standards, and other best practice guides?
  • What areas of research show promise to inform and evolve text customization for readability?
  • The Impact of Easy to Read: user groups, economic, society
  • Workfolows
  • Automated and/or Supported Easy to Read


Conclusion

... ...

References

Symposium Proceedings

proceedings with BiBTex (example format)

Acknowledgements

Participants of the W3C WAI Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) involved in the development of this document include: Simon Harper (Co-Chair), Shadi Abou-Zahra (W3C WAI Staff Contact), @@....

RDWG would also like to thank:

  • Chairs and Scientific Committee members
    • Shawn Henry (W3C/WAI), Co-Chair
    • David Sloan (University of Dundee), Co-Chair
    • Shadi Abou-Zahra (W3C/WAI)
    • Vivienne L. Conway (Edith Cowan University)
    • Robyn Hunt (AccEase)
    • Caroline Jarrett (Design to Read and Effortmark Limited)
    • Clayton Lewis (University of Colorado)
    • Kerstin Matausch (KI-I)
    • Klaus Miesenberger (Johannes Kepler Universität)
    • Christopher D. Nicholas (Language Technologies, Inc.)
    • Birgit Peböck (KI-I)
    • Luz Rello (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
    • John Richards (IBM T.J. Watson Research Center and University of Dundee)
  • Paper authors
    • Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Yahoo! Research & Universitat Pompeu Fabra
    • Wayne E. Dick, Ph.D. Knowbility, Inc.
    • Olaf Drümmer, callas software GmbH
    • Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
    • Luz Rello, Universitat Pompeu Fabra
    • Eileen Rivera Ley, MBA. Ley & Associates, LLC
    • Anthony Lee
    • Vasile Topac, Politehnica University of Timisoara
  • Additional contributors via e-mail:

This document was developed with support from the WAI-ACT Project. 

NOTE: This is a rough, in-progress draft.


Reference formats

[@@open] e-mail format:
Doe, J, j.doe@email.com, 2012. [TC4R Symposium] Subject. [E-mail] Message to RDWG Comments (public-wai-rd-comments@w3.org). Sent 00 November 2012. Available at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd-comments/2012Nov/@@.html [Accessed 12 December 12].

Misc

Inputs:

Other Symposium Reports:

[More TC4R Report Notes and Archive of previous draft info]


Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/index.php?title=EasyToReadOntheWeb_Draft_Report&oldid=2149"