W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-eo-plan@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: How PWDs Review & Raw Diffs

From: Bakken, Brent <brent.bakken@pearson.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:53:40 -0600
Message-ID: <CAE6qf-H5FA5xtXpyf_Nh0pCuBwsVeFGMF5kO3Ly1vrFLX23tfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: "public-eo-plan@w3.org" <public-eo-plan@w3.org>
Thanks for pulling this example together Shawn.

We said that these reviews needed to be quick, simple and focused on what
was changed.

So if there are minor changes, we need to provide some sort of diff view
(whether Word, HTML or other source) for people to look at. Otherwise they
will be spending too much time trying to find the differences that they
should be comparing.

If there are more substantial changes (like the user stories) then we do
want people to review the page/passage/resource (whatever applicable) as a
whole and approve as a whole.

In this case we have a little of both. Seems the overview is minor changes,
the stories are major changes, and the other two pages are minor. We need
to set up the survey to reflect that so people don't waste time trying to
find minor changes in a large section of content.

Can we work on this survey more today or early next week and see where we
are with it by Wed morning? We need to get diff views for minor change
areas and then tell them to review all the user stories as a whole review.

Brent



Brent A. Bakken
Director, Accessibility Strategy & Education Services
Pearson

512 202 1087
brent.bakken@pearson.com

Learn more at pearson.com

[image: Pearson]


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> quick note for now:
>
> Attached are "quick and dirty"/"raw" diffs created from Word. (When
> providing these for EOWG review, I think we'd want to do some cleanup so
> only actual content changes are marked; whereas these raw ones show not
> really format changes.)
>
> From quick skim, it looks like:
> * Stories of Web Use- are significantly changed and probably we want to
> tell folks that, and that they should review all. (We could still provide
> Diff for those who want it.)
> * Tools and Techniques - I don't see any changes at all. So what are you
> asking people to review?
>
> I didn't do the others, nor look at the extent of changes.
>
> ~Shawn
>
Received on Friday, 1 December 2017 16:54:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 1 December 2017 16:54:14 UTC