Edit comment LC-623 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-470 Next: LC-1066

Comment LC-623: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Lisa Seeman 4 <lisa@ubaccess.com> on behalf of Invited expert at W3C, UB access; 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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

changes in natural language is identified:
Is WCAG awere that this is huge amount of work? for lots of content this would be more work then the rest of WCAG put together (all the has English in for web site names and odd words..). On the other hand it seems typically understandable by the user as is, and not so important for the user..

Proposed Change:

move SC 3.2 to level 3; Related issues: Comment LC-760 Comment LC-622
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMB] [HOLD] Proposal from team to be surveyed [SM]Comment LC-760 points out that this may be useful for future versions of speech synthesizers to switch to different language modes. There is a note in the "How To Meet" section of this SC "Note: This requirement does not apply to individual words or phrases that have become part of the primary language of the content." From Christophe, 9/7/2006: I have reviewed the comments and revised the response, but I have no information about the amount of work (when compared to other SCs) required by SC 3.1.2. I have asked about this on a German accessibility mailing list (WAI-DE), and I'm waiting for responses. One of the things I read on the WAI-DE mailing list is that language markup can be important in compound words that contain parts borrowed from another language. For example, in a German text, "Webtechnik" can be interpreted as "web technology" (if "Web" is marked up as English) or as "weaving technique/technology" (without marking up a change in language). Similarly, "HTML-Tag" could be interpreted as "HTML tag" (markup) or "HTML day". I also checked a few pages of organisations involved in web accessibility, and found the following results: http://www.heritas.nl/overheritas_expertise.html Language changes not marked up: * sitecheck * World Wide Web Consortium * Web Content Accessibility Guidelines * Participant in Good Standing (No other changes in language.) http://www.drempelsweg.nl/smartsite.dws?lettertype=&id=140 Language changes not marked up: * Access All Areas * content (three times) * headers * server-side image map (two times) * client-side image map * user agents * scripts & applets are border cases Only the first occurrence of W3C is marked up as an acronym; the start tag has a lang element with value 'en' for the English content of the title attribute. This is the only language change in the document that is actually marked up. http://www.drempelvrij.nl/waarmerk Language changes not marked up: * toolbar (first occurrence is not marked up) * Award (three times) * commercial (maybe also part of Dutch; the term also occurs in two alt attributes) * Windows Media File * releases * accessibility (two times, including the URL at the bottom of the page) The other language changes are marked up: * toolbar (four times) * Taskforce * Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (two times) http://www.anysurfer.be/nl/ This page contains a few French names and several English terms. Only changes to French are marked up. The following changes to English are not marked up: * Home (four times) * sitemap * AnySurfer (10 times, not counting occurrences in title and alt attributes) * BlindSurfer (4 times, not counting occurrences in title and alt attributes) * disclaimer (1 occurrence at bottom of page) (Note: privacy has become part of Dutch.) I'll get back when I get a response from the German mailing list. Reviewed at the July 18, 2005 Team B meeting; send to survey. Discussed in the 20 July 2006 telecon: Resolution: refer LC-623 back to team B to address survey comments. http://www.w3.org/2006/07/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html Discussed in the 16 November 2006 telecon: RESOLUTION: close LC-622, LC-623, LC-760, LC-1295 as ammended http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/11/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not-accept}; Resolution: There were comments to combine 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move them up and to move them down. After much discussion, the consensus of the working group was to leave them in the current positions.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)