Edit comment LC-1381 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1382 Next: LC-1125

Comment LC-1381: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> on behalf of I18N WG; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/

Comment 9
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
3.1.5 Resources

Comment:
Since this section says that this guideline can be applied to non-English text, it seems strange that there are no references at all to non-English assessment techniques in the Resources section.

Please provide some.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMB] Makoto, are there any resources for Japanese for determining reading level, or for writing simply and clearly? 08 Aug: From Christophe: In the BenToWeb project, an expert in computer linguistics wrote a report in which he discusses, among other things, readability measures. The report is available at ftp://ftp.fit.fraunhofer.de/bika/projects/bentoweb/deliverables/BenToWeb_D6.1.pdf. One of the things he writes is: <quote> To date, the majority of research and literature on readability metrics is focussed on (American) English. Adaptations of readability formulae to other languages are a relatively late development (see, e.g., [Dickes/Steiwer 77] for German). Often, these adaptations have turned out not to be as straight forward as their English counterparts ([Groeben 82]). Readability formulae have never been undisputed and, first of all, the very researchers who developed these formulae warned about their limited applicability ([DuBay 04]). The most problematic aspect is that language is reduced to very superficial statistical criteria, which can hardly claim cognitive adequacy. </quote> The Flesch Reading Ease Formula has been adapted to Dutch by W. H. Douma (according to http://www.scholieren.com/werkstukken/1104, which is just a description of a mathematics task for secondary school). The formula cited here is the following: G = 206,84 - 77 . W - 0,93 . Z where: - G = readability - W = word length (average number of syllables per word) - Z = sentence length (average number of words per sentence) (The dot (.) is the multiplication operator.) The Dutch organization CITO (http://www.cito.nl/) has developed formulas that relate readability to education level. The CILT (CITO index voor leestechniek - CITO index for reading ability) is calculated by CILT for books to help parents and teachers find suitable books for children. The formula is not available on their own website but in a publication elsewhere: http://toetswijzer.kennisnet.nl/html/tg/4.pdf. I'll translate the relevant section: <quote> The CILT is a so-called readability formula, and in principle - but only in principle, see below - a readability formula like all the others (for an overview of this type of formulas and related research: Staphorsius, 1994, pages 66 and following). This type of readability formulas are developed roughly as follows. A given set of texts is sampled and the readability of the sample is determined. This is followed by research into the features of the texts that explain the differences in readability. This process uses multiple regression analysis. The regression equation that results from this is called the readability formula or index. The formula for the CILT, for example, looks as follows: CILT = 114.49 + 0.28FREQ - 12.23GWL (R = 0.90; R^2 = 0.82) In which FREQ is a measure for word frequency, based on the frequency reseach by Staphorsius, Kram & De Geus (1988). And in which GWL stands for the average word length in letters. (For the details of the readability research that led to the CILT, see Staphorsius & Verhelst, 1997.) </quote> (Of course, all bibliographic references refer to articles in Dutch.) I found a few other relevant websites for Dutch. Anderslezen.nl (English: "Reading differently") (http://anderslezen.nl) is a Dutch website with reading materials and information for people with reading disabilities, but it does not contain any guidelines or measures. Wablieft (English: "I beg you pardon?") (http://bop.vgc.be/tijdschriften/wablieft/) is a weekly newsletter in Dutch that presents the news in plain and simple language. Unfortunately, the website does not contain any guidelines or measures. Leesbaar Nederlands (English: "Readable Dutch") (http://www.leesbaarnederlands.nl/taal.htm) contains guidelines for writing text that is accessible for people with a reading disability. These guidelines address languaga, content (e.g. structure) and design (typography, illustrations, layout). "In Duidelijk Nederlands" (http://www.wetsmatiging.be/MFiles/in%20duidelijk%20nederlands.pdf) is a style guide for civil servants by the Flemish Department of Education. "Richtlijnen Keurmerk Makkelijk Lezen" (http://taalunieversum.org/onderwijs/publicaties/geletterd_in_de_lage_landen/richtlijnen.php) are the guidelines used by the Stichting Makkelijk Lezen (English: Easy Reading Foundation). The Stichting Makkelijk Lezen also evaluates fiction and informative texts and awards the labels Makkelijk Lezen (Easy Reading, for fiction) and Gewone Taal (Plain Language, for informative texts); see http://www.stichtingmakkelijklezen.nl/. Note that these guidelines are for publications on paper. TextQuest.de lists dozens of references for readability formulas (31 for English, 20 for German, etc): http://www.textquest.de/lesbar.htm. The "Wiener Sachtextformel" (by Richard Bamberger and Erich Vanecek; see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbarkeitsindex#Wiener_Sachtextformel) aims to calculate the reading age in years for a German text. I hope this helps. Best regards, Christophe Discussed in the 07 September 2006 telecon: resolution: unanimous acceptance of Team b and team c items that everyone agreed with Team B: LC-540, LC-759, LC-932, LC-1298, LC-1381 Team C: LC-673, LC-1407, LC-1166 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html {accept} DONE Add to Resources for 3.1.5: - [[TextQuest.de http://www.textquest.de/lesbar.htm]] lists references for readability formulas for different languages, including English, German, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Swedish. - [Richtlijnen Keurmerk Makkelijk Lezen http://taalunieversum.org/onderwijs/publicaties/geletterd_in_de_lage_landen/richtlijnen.php]] are the guidelines used by the Stichting Makkelijk Lezen (Easy Reading Foundation). - [[Leesbaar Nederlands http://www.leesbaarnederlands.nl/taal.htm]] ("Readable Dutch") contains guidelines for writing text that is accessible for people with a reading disability. These guidelines address language, content and design. - [[Wetenschappelijke verantwoording van de toetsserie Leestechniek & Leestempo http://toetswijzer.kennisnet.nl/html/tg/4.pdf]] describes the CILT (CITO index voor leestechniek - CITO index for reading ability), the formulas developed by the Dutch organization CITO (http://www.cito.nl/) that relate readability to education level. Internal WD updated 07 September. Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0017.html; Resolution: We have added references for some non-English assessment techniques to the Resources for Success Criterion 3.1.5.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)