RE: Another attempt at plain language

[Shawn Steele <[e-mail]>]

Ø  If the purpose is to distinguish webpages by BCP47 language tags, it is perfectly reasonable on a site to want to distinguish between a "normal" version, and a simplified version (not only for accessibility, but also for second-language speakers).

What webpages?  I have a very difficult time imagining anyone creating two versions.  Http-accept-language hasn’t always been widely used, with little flags and other icons to toggle between languages, so it seems very likely that if any web content providers were interested in providing multiple versions, they already would have done so.

Furthermore, it seems to me that most web sites are already writing to the audiences that they intend to target.  It’s difficult for me to imagine a cnn.com and a simple-cnn.com.

There seem to be two major reasons to simplify language:  Kids, and ESL.  Maybe a third could adult readers that have low reading ability.

AFAICT, most kids sites are already simple, so this isn’t very helpful for them.  ESL then, however most sites interested in non-English speaking markets choose to provide alternate languages instead of simpler English.  Government agencies and others servicing reading-impaired people seem to typically provide a single content at that level.

It’s possible that there’s a very narrow range of sites that focus on poor readers and want differentiation for content, but I haven’t stumbled across any.

That said, I helped request a tag where there were discussions of the utility of the tag.  So I can hardly object.

I would like to see tlh-pIqaD at some point.

-Shawn