Robust meaning (&Disappearance of "reliably" )

[innoticFR]

How would you define "Robust" for a non-English native speaker?

I am searching for an unambiguous term in my native language, as I suspect 'robust' in this context implies 'future-proofing' and 'interoperability' rather than mere physical or structural 'solidity'.

About that, back in 2017 a "reliably" has been removed from the Robust text (see below). It looks like an error. Is it?

Date:   Tue Feb 21 11:28:03 2017 -0500

    restore reliable defintion and ednote

diff --git a/guidelines/index.html b/guidelines/index.html
index 073f4aa43..4fc829bcd 100644
--- a/guidelines/index.html
+++ b/guidelines/index.html
@@ -1057,7 +1057,8 @@

                <section class="principle" id="robust">
                        <h2> Robust </h2>
-                       <p>Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.</p>
+                       <p>Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted
+        y by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.</p>

[GreggVan]

Don't try to read too much into the word "robust". When we finish sorting out the perceive operate and understand there were a few provisions which spanned across all three of them. There was also one provision which had to do with working now and into the future. Time was spent trying to think of some name to put on this group other than "miscellaneous" or "other". And the word robust was chosen as the word to use – and it's stuck. But if you try to translate that term into another word that will accurately describe what is in that group, you will fail because the word robust actually fails. It was just the closest that the group could come up with at the time. This again is a problem with trying to sort the provisions rather than tag the provisions. Many of the provisions actually don't fit entirely or only in the categories we have them in. They fit in multiple categories.

Anytime you try to sort complex thoughts into discreet categories you are going to run into this problem. We really should be tagging the provisions with all of the aspects they relate to rather than trying to sort them into the aspects as if they only impact one aspect.

[innoticFR]

Thanks for your answer. This confirms a large part of my difficulty with this term, combined with the fact that "robust" here (in French) feels more about "rigidity" than quality (at least from my own point of view).

[patrickhlauke]

I am searching for an unambiguous term in my native language

assuming it's french... you could look at https://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG22-fr/ (spoilers, they went with "Robuste")

[patrickhlauke]

as for what happened to "reliably", that does appear to have been a mistake 570c129

later on, somebody noticed the hanging y, thought it was supposed to be by and corrected it. and then it was removed as redundant 6f883b5

I'd say that's probably for the better, as WCAG itself (and authors following the guidelines) can't guarantee that user agents will be bug-free / follow published specs exactly, so the onus of reliability is arguably on the clients, not the authors

[innoticFR]

It's fascinating to see how many terms English and French share, yet translating them too literally can lead to shifts in meaning, sometimes even becoming counterintuitive.

In the context of technology, the French word "robuste" typically evokes structural stability, high availability, or security. Personally, "robuste" in French gives me the impression of something static that refuses to change. This creates a bit of a paradox, as the core intent of the "Robust" pillar is actually long-term interoperability and evolution.

From my point of view as a French speaker, "flexibility" or "adaptability" feels like a much more intuitive way to describe a system that remains compatible as technologies evolve.

It's a bit like La Fontaine's fable: when it comes to adapting to endure, I tend to think of the flexibility of the reed rather than the robustness of the oak.