Fwd: Web redesigned content: Older Users Resources/Feedback by 01.11.2017 (COB)

[FTR]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Victoria Menezes Miller <menezesmiller@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:28 PM
Subject: Web redesigned content: Older Users Resources/Feedback by
01.11.2017 (COB)
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, "Bakken, Brent" <
brent.bakken@pearson.com>, robert@knowbility.org, Andrew Arch <
andrew.arch@gmail.com>, Norah M <norah.sinclair@amac.gatech.edu>, "Wise,
Charlotte" <cwise@visa.com>


Dear friends,

Following last week's conference call, and having understood better the
review process for the revised content, I'm reverting to you on the subject
of the Older Users Resources to seek your advice and thoughts, following
our internal review on two outstanding points which I was not able to
resolve.

The comments from Brent (through the planning team), Shadi and Norah have
all been duly implemented but for two points.  We need to either reach
consensus or bundle off the package to the planning team which may invite a
wider response from the EOWG.

However, I am hopeful that we can arrive at a conclusion.  Here are the two
points:

1) Should the presentation on older users be kept or removed from these web
pages (link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/presentations/ageing/   )?

   - I feel rather inclined, as does Shadi, to keep the resource. My
   reasoning is that this was part of the WAI-AGE project and the information
   is useful.   No strong feelings on this from either one of us but rather a
   request to reflect again on whether the resource should be removed.
   - *Question:*  Keep the resource or remove if for later updating?

2) Link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Web_and_Older_Users

   - On the page mentioned above, there is a paragraph entitled "*Technical
   Resources to Improve Accessibility and Usability for Older Users*" which
   leads users to consult resources according to "role" types.  It was felt
   that perhaps using "role" types (such as, developers, managers, policy
   makers) is tricky and the paragraph should be modified. Specifically the
   comment from Shadi was "*Categories like “developers”, “managers”, and
   such often cause problems – for example because different people define
   these roles differently, or because what we are saying could map to several
   roles. Rather than using such role terms it may be better to describe the
   function of the section – for example, “to understand the mapping to WCAG
   2.0” or such*."
   - I've not been successful in re-wording this paragraph although some
   changes have been made.  Does anyone wish to have a go and re-word so that
   it doesn't mention "role" types.  You can either edit in the wiki, or
   Git-Hub, or suggest a paragraph by e-mail.  From my point of view, I feel
   that the role types is quite useful but... I'd rather receive feedback or
   find another way of presenting the information to suit everyone.

Thus, dear folks, please could you put your thinking caps on and let's
resolve the two points above.  I don't feel very strongly about either but
have a nagging feeling that the resource under point 1) should be kept as
we don't have a lot for the "older users" resources.

Please let me have your feedback by *Wednesday, November 1, 2017 (COB).*

Best,

Vicki