Having finished the translation of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 into Russian , I wanted to talk about linguistics, law enforcement, and raise the question in the title: why Russian sites can comply with WCAG, the standards for accessibility of the European Union, the United States and even China, but not the national standard - GOST?
On April 1 this year (the date was chosen very symbolic), GOST R 52872-2019 “Internet resources and other information presented in digital form. Applications for stationary and mobile devices, other user interfaces. Accessibility requirements for people with disabilities and other persons with disabilities " , which replaced GOST R 52872-2012" Internet resources. Accessibility requirements for visually impaired people . "
The link to the text of the current GOST leads to an unofficial copy in PDF, since the official link from the Rosstandart website to the GOST text, according to availability, leads to an unavailable version in JPG format, which is clearly prohibited by the same GOST. L - logic, but now I'm talking about something else, namely: about the statement " when developing this standard, the document Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 , which is current at this moment, was taken as a basis ", contained in the "Introduction" section of the unavailable GOST on accessibility.
Let's start with what a standard is. Roughly speaking, it is 2x2 = 4, 1000 meters per kilometer, and drinking milk is “a product of normal physiological secretion of mammary glands of farm animals <…> without any additions to this product ”, everything else is a milk-containing product.
WCAG is not a standard, but a recommendation(This is the official status of this document): "It's good if your kilometer has at least 900 and no more than 1100 meters, it's even better if 950-1050, and ideally exactly 1000, but the ideal is not always achievable." The WCAG calls this the “level of compliance,” and there are three of them: A (fair), AA (good), and AAA (excellent). Attention, question: compliance with which of these three levels of recommendation is compliance with the standard - GOST? None of the authors thought about this.
Now let's read the WCAG right from the first paragraph: " following the Guidelines will make content more accessible to more people with varying disabilities ." At the same time, the name of GOST: " Applicationsfor stationary and mobile devices, other user interfaces ”. Although the WCAG explicitly states: “Web accessibility depends not only on content availability, but also on the support of accessibility features from web browsers and other user agents. Content creation tools also play an important role in web accessibility. See overviews on how these web development and interoperability components work together, ”and links to the relevant interface accessibility guidelines UAAG and ATAG are provided .
But the authors of GOST persist in expanding its application: “in this standard, the requirements and recommendations apply not only to the accessibility of web content, but also to the availability of any information presented in digital form, for interaction with which the same or similar technologies are used . " Once again the original name of WCAG: « Guidelines for accessibility of Web content ."
Now the funniest thing is the translation of WCAG, which has become GOST, that is, the state standard, for a second. For example, clause 3.1.2 of GOST gives such a definition of the term "active pointer": an input device that can be directed to a specific point (s) on the screen, such as a mouse, stylus or user's finger .
The original of this definition is in English: pointer input - input device that can target a specific coordinate (or set of coordinates) on a screen, such as a mouse, pen, or touch contact .
Starting from only one of the meanings of the English word "device" - "device, device" - the translator attributed to them a human finger, while the original meant another meaning of this word - "method, method." Thus, in the source text (and from the WCAG context it is quite obvious) it meant "method, way of entering" information, and not "input device". At the same time, it remains unclear why, in the translation, the “pointer” became “active” and what caused this gag.
The above definition could be translated into Russian, for example, as follows:Pointer Input — Enter data or commands by specifying specific coordinates on the screen, such as using a mouse, stylus, or touch .
Another example of an erroneous translation is the translation of the term "alternative for time-based media", named in clause 3.1.4 of GOST "an alternative representation of time-limited media content", and made as follows: a correctly composed text commentary contained in the content, synchronized with time-limited video or audio information and allowing its interactive use.
Note: A software script (script) used to create synced media content may meet this definition if it has been adjusted to accurately represent the synced media content after it was published .
WCAG defines the term in English as follows: document including correctly sequenced text descriptions of time-based visual and auditory information and providing a means for achieving the outcomes of any time-based interaction
Note: A screenplay used to create the synchronized media content would meet this definition only if it was corrected to accurately represent the final synchronized media after editing .
In this case,
- time-based media – «, », « -», , , , ();
- correctly sequenced text descriptions – « <...> - », « ». , , - . WCAG , , , , ;
- providing a means for achieving the outcomes of any time-based interaction – « », « [ ] ». , (, , Flash) , ;
- screenplay – « ()», , , , .. WCAG , , , - – , , , , .
Thus, the definition of the term “alternative for time-based media” in Russian could sound as follows:
alternative for time-based media - a document that includes a text description in the correct sequence of dynamic visual and audio information, and providing a means to achieve the result of interaction with dynamic content.
Note: The script used to create the synced media content will meet this definition if edited to accurately represent the resulting media content.
These are just two examples from the very first page of GOST, and such gross errors, gag and translation inaccuracies are found literally in every paragraph of it.
Here they may object to me that the GOST
Syktyvkar City Court of the Komi Republic <...> having consideredin an open court hearing, a civil case on the claim of the Syktyvkar Transport Prosecutor in the interests of an indefinite circle of persons against Komiaviatrans JSC on bringing the Internet resource in line with the requirements of the legislation on social protection of disabled people, established: <...> conclusion about the absence of discrimination on the basis of disability in using the Internet resource can only be done if the sites comply with GOST R 52872-2012 “Internet resources. Requirements for accessibility for visually impaired people "<...> decided: to recognize as illegal inaction and to oblige JSC" Komiaviatrans "to bring the site ... in accordance with the requirements established by GOST R 52872-2012" Internet resources. Accessibility requirements for visually impaired people. "
Do you think this is an isolated case? No, there were other solutions, all over the country:Volgograd region , Tver region , Moscow , then - everywhere. So far, I have come across only cases related to the previous version of GOST, but this does not change the essence: supervision and the court consider GOST in the field of website accessibility to be mandatory.
Taking this into account, site owners face “pitchforks”:
Which match option will site owners choose? I hope the one that is generally accepted, for which there are numerous validation tools, which is supported by all modern web development tools, user agents and assistive technologies, and not the one that a few illiterate but ambitious authors, with the connivance of Rosstandart, decided to make GOST. But, as mentioned above, there is a nuance ...