IWCG Guideline 4. Language
Guideline 3.1 of WCAG 2.1 (W3C, 2018a) already defines mechanised techniques for readable website content such as unusual words, reading level and provision of pronunciation information. This does not cover all of the language-related criteria that may apply to website content. The addition of Guideline 5.4 is intended to introduce success criteria related to the information quality attributes of an overall site, including content on multiple pages.
4.1. Ambiguous terms defined within text
Guideline
Define ambiguous terms within text using clear language.
Description
Whilst Success Criterion 3.1.3 already requires the definition of words used in an unusual way such as idiomatic or colloquial language, this criterion extends these requirements to include any ambiguous term used within text. For example, there was confusion during the first case study between essays, assignments and coursework. Explanations of how these terms are used should be provided contextually within the text so that user unfamiliar with the specific language can still understand the purpose and meaning within the content.
Information quality attributes
Language, understandability
Critical errors
Many terms used interchangeably with no in-context definitions.
Rating for ‘Ambiguous terms defined within text’
Rating | Criteria |
Rating 0 | Ambiguous terms used interchangeably with no definitions |
Rating 1 | Not applicable |
Rating 2 | Ambiguous terms used though described through annotations and/or glossary |
Rating 3 | Not applicable |
Rating 4 | No ambiguous terms used |
4.2. Clear use of language
Guideline
Write content using plain language and universal grammar.
Description
Writing content at the appropriate level of detail can be challenging, particularly where there are multiple audiences of expert and non-expert users. The UK Government Digital Service (2016) provide guidance that writing in plain English can benefit both those with high and low literacy, with 80% of experts in the legal domain preferring clear sentences to those written at an expert level. Ensuring content is written plainly will increase accessibility of information for those with and without domain knowledge.
Information quality attributes
Interpretability, language, understandability
Critical errors
Many complex words within content.
Rating for ‘Clear use of language’
Rating | Criteria |
Rating 0 | Confusing language used with complex words |
Rating 1 | Not applicable |
Rating 2 | Language generally accessible to intended audience though some complex concepts |
Rating 3 | Not applicable |
Rating 4 | All content explained in simple, plain language |
4.3. Consistent use of terminology
Guideline
Use terminology consistently without synonymy.
Description
Synonymy has proven to be a challenge for users accessing information with the three exploratory case studies, particular for non-expert users unfamiliar with the domain. Ensuring that the language used throughout information in consistent across the entire site will improve user access to the web content and enhance information seeking patterns.
Information quality attributes
Consistent representation, language, understandability
Critical errors
Synonymous terms used interchangeably within content.
Rating for ‘Consistent use of terminology’
Rating | Criteria |
Rating 0 | Synonymy present in content |
Rating 1 | Not applicable |
Rating 2 | Synonymy within content identified with in-text contextualisations |
Rating 3 | Not applicable |
Rating 4 | No synonymy in content |
4.4. Universal applicability
Guideline
Make sure language is appropriate for all anticipated audiences.
Description
The specific terminology used with website content can often include terms that can be applied in different ways depending on the context. Ensuring that the language used is universally applicable for expert and non-expert users as well as the range of website audiences will improve access to information and remove potential barriers for understanding content.
Information quality attributes
Accuracy, level of detail
Critical errors
Content includes many domain-specific terms explained in a way only expert users could understand.
Rating for ‘Universal applicability’
Rating | Criteria |
Rating 0 | Language not universally applicable with domain-specific terms not explained |
Rating 1 | Not applicable |
Rating 2 | Some non-universal language with appropriate explanations |
Rating 3 | Not applicable |
Rating 4 | Language universally applicable with domain-specific terms explained clearly |