patrickhlauke
commented
1 month ago The "except for" part of the SC some people have interpreted as meaning that any of these exceptions are exempt from needing (or even, "should never use") a language attribute
I would strongly suggest a sentence in the Understanding document that permits using a programmatically determinable language on these exceptions (as defined in a key term) if the author determines it may serve the intended audience, but that it would not fail the SC.
this seems to misunderstand the purpose of exemptions. the SCs set a bottom line, a floor, for determining if something passes or fails WCAG. the exemptions say that in those situations, if something isn't done, it doesn't fail an SC. it does not mean the opposite ... that if authors do do it, they fail. It just means that it's not necessary to do it in those cases to pass.
jamieherrera
It would be very helpful in practice to get Key Terms for the "except for" part of 3.1.2 Language of Parts.
Second, I'd like to understand this team's intent for the phrasing of the 3.1.2 Language of Parts SC, primarily the reason to use "except for":
This SC seems to imply the second clause is clearly not able to be programmatically determinable. Is the intent that the "except for" items not be pronounced by AT in their original language even if it can be pronounced?
"can be" implies there are situations that "can't be" ; I know the 3.1.1 SC uses the same phrasing so maybe just ignore this bullet.
The "except for" part of the SC some people have interpreted as meaning that any of these exceptions are exempt from needing (or even, "should never use") a language attribute.
In the case I'm thinking of, a company uses several branding product names that are purposely not translated into a second language when the surrounding text is in that second language. It is a decision; these words are trademarked. That product name is clearly in a programmatically determinable language (say, clearly in English, which has a programmatically determinable language "en"). As the name of a "thing" it could be considered a "proper name" if using a generic definition from an internet search, like a "person, place, or thing". WCAG does not define "proper name". It seems to do AT users, particularly SR users, a disservice by resulting in poor pronunciation for items that are clearly one language's version of a noun. If it used a lang attribute, AT users would understand this product is the same product as what is advertised on commercials; if not using a lang attribute some SR butcher the words as unintelligible in the second language.
Also, most languages have alternative proper nouns for places and things, like "Twin Towers" in English is "Torres Gemelas" in Spanish; it was a place, it has proper nouns, but the proper nouns can change.
TL; DR I would strongly suggest formally adding each exception as its own Key Term. I would strongly suggest limiting the "proper name" term to specific use cases I would strongly suggest a sentence in the Understanding document that permits using a programmatically determinable language on these exceptions (as defined in a key term) if the author determines it may serve the intended audience, but that it would not fail the SC.