W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Final Business Benefits document suite available - updated 21:30 17-Aug

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:27:37 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>, "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Thanks Andrew!

- Judy

At 09:34 PM 8/17/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
>See below for actions (several of which had already been undertaken last
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
>To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>Cc: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Final Business Benefits document suite available
>> Dear Andrew,
>> I just read it through in detail and it is really looking good.
>> As I can now print it w/out the Opera crash I was getting previously
>> (perhaps it was one of the markup clean-ups?), I've gone through it
>> carefully. I've come up with a few more things that I believe need
>> attending to before this goes out for review. All are minor things to fix;
>> sorry could not get these together earlier.
>> Details below...
>> At 10:11 PM 8/16/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
>> >Dear EOWG
>> >
>> >The final draft of the Business Benefits (with the linearised tables) is
>> >available from the usual place (or go straight to
>> >http://members.optushome.com.au/amja/wai/busben.html)
>> >
>> >Thanks to all those who provided comments and suggestions and editorial
>> >assistance.
>> >
>> >Lets see what the rest of the world thinks!
>> >
>> >Thanks,  Andrew
>> - the layout of the "Business Benefits of Accessible Design" title is
>> wrapping strangely. you may still have an align left or align right in
>> there, that would no longer be necessary w/out the resource suite nav bar.
>> - the "note" at beginning should be updated as we pull it onto the w3c/wai
>> site to publish it prior to the review request, e.g. not this draft but
>> one to be reviewed on w3c/wai site should say 'is offered for review'
>> rather than 'will be offered.' i will coordinate w/ you on that
>> - typos: i'll list the ones here that i could find, please search main doc
>> for these words: demostrate, retrived, presenation, intructions; linear
>> tables version: benefiuts
>> - caps: there's something strange going on w/ caps; many of the acronyms
>> appear to be missing spaces in front of them, or this may in fact be the
>> case, e.g. search for theWCAG or usingSMIL and see if you get anything
>Huh? spaces appear before them all. note that I have used the <acronym> tag
>> - title of table document: should not have the same title, is confusing,
>> some people might think they have the main document if they are sent there
>> - initial cap on "Web": is standard usage for W3C however in the doc is
>> inconsistent, sometimes "web"
>> - "final": this doc will still be considered a draft until it has gone
>> _through_ WAI IG review & other review, and so should not be labeled final
>> draft (as it currently is at end of main document) nor refered to it that
>> way on lists.
>> - u.s. vs. rest-of-the-world english: just checked w/ communications team
>> at w3c and we do need to bring this in line w/ w3c convention which is for
>> u.s. english spellings. affects colour, utilise, realise,
>> internationalisation, etc. Andrew I will forward you a note w/ details
>> W3C's document editor.
>Oh well - we can only try - DONE (and reset to [lang="en-us"])
>> - minor point but quote marks are used inconsistently throughout document,
>> which becomes distracting; almost all of them should be double quotes
>> rather than single quotes '...'
>> - WCAG: can't recall if we discussed this in the working group, but the
>> references to WCAG should, i believe, all be references to WCAG 1.0,
>> especially since we are specifically referencing WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
>> W3C's general rule is to reference specs by version number when such
>> exists, unless there is good reason not to, and I don't see good reason
>> to here.
>Yes, I do recall the discussion - DONE
>> - general comment but probably not for changing at this point: the
>> use of "you" and "your" in addressing the audience throughout the document
>> strikes me as awkward in a number of places, and conversely the one or two
>> areas where that convention is not used (for instance in the section on
>> "assisting access for low-bandwidth users") reads more smoothly to me. i
>> think the problem is some cognitive dissonance for me with the notion that
>> every person who reads this document is reading it with regard to their
>> Web site. the audience could actually include Web developers or image
>> consultants, regulatory folks who are curious about the business benefits
>> side of things, etc.  In a few places the "you" almost seems like talking
>> down to people. However, to remove it would involve extensive re-writing,
>> and also probably make it sound dryer. Therefore, I'm just pointing this
>> out but am not sure whether we should change that or not. Am interested in
>> others' reactions on this question.
>> - suggested rewordings:
>> DONE * first paragraph: "to assist in the preparation of a business case
>> implementation of Web accessibility."
>> DONE * second para: "adoption of WCAG checkpoints" (we cannot use the term
>> recommendations here, it is reserved for W3C Recommendations so as not to
>> create confusion)
>> DONE * fourth para: "demographics" instead of "demographic statistics"
>> DONE * fifth para: "Since one of the underlying tenets of the WCAG is to
>> increase the usability of Web sites..." change to "Since implementation of
>> the WCAG has the effect of increasing the usability of Web sites..."
>> DONE * i still believe that it is misleading to state that "the proportion
>> people with disabilities in the population is up to 20 percent in many
>> developed countries -- a significant market that can be accessed through
>> conformance with WCAG" since it implies that the provisions in WCAG are
>> relevant to this entire demographic. they are not, and i believe that it
>> presents a credibility problem for w3c/wai to imply so. suggested
>> rewording: "The proportion of people with disabilities can range up to 20%
>> in some populations. A significant portion of those people with
>> disabilities -- in some countries as much as 8% to 10% of the overall
>> population -- can benefit from the accessibility in Web sites conforming
>> WCAG 1.0."
>> DONE * "cell-phone browsers" suggest changing to "mobile phone browsers"
>> is less used in many countries"
>> DONE * "also be aware that 8% of the male population" in some countries
>this is
>> 10%; it varies. Suggestion: "Also be aware that 8% - 10% of the male
>> population in many countries..."
>> DONE - but check* "From a strategic point of view, anything you can do to
>increase the
>> likelihood that your site will be found over your competitor's is a
>> positive benefit" This seems to imply that all Web sites are run by
>> cutthroat competitors, whereas hopefully the business benefits of
>> accessibility will appeal to non-profits and socially-minded corporations
>> alike. Can't figure out how to reword it. What about dropping it?
>> DONE * under "repurpose content" suggest changing "simply let the
>differing Web
>> devices" to "...diferent Web devices."
>> DONE * "The bandwidth savings are astonishing" suggest changing to "The
>> bandwidth savings are immense" (rather than presuming the emotional effect
>> on audience)
>> DONE * "Style sheets vs. HTML tag-spaghetti: we need something that
>> internationalizes better than this... how about "Style sheets vs. in-line
>> markup"
>> DISCUSS * "from WAP phone to PDA's" suggest spelling both of these
>acronyms out.
>> DONE * "with bandwidth becoming an limitation" "...a limitation"
>> DONE * "The population is also ageing" "The population in some countries
>is also
>> ageing"
>> DONE * "This includes equal access to electronic information..." "This may
>> include..."
>> - questions:
>> * the first sub-bullet under "clear content" in low literacy levels -- the
>> detail in this paragraph, about the use of short sentences and lists,
>> doesn't this seem to go beyond what WCAG 1.0 actually says? if so, we are
>> breaking the thesis of this resource page.
>Checked the literal wording of WCAG 1.0 and agree - DONE
>> - misc:
>> * there's an erroneous bulleted line in the "captioning" item under search
>> engine performance
>Can't find this
>> - tables document:
>> * there are two "to be completed" sections near the end. we should have
>> these completed before it goes out for review...
>> So, all those were little details... again, the document is looking very
>> good. This document represents  a great amount of work and will become a
>> very useful resource.
>Thanks Judy for the "fine tooth comb" review.
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 08:30:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:48 UTC