Re: For Review: Accessibility page for beta.w3.org

Thanks for the comments, Andrew!

*EOWG active participants* - please reply to questions below.

Andrew Arch wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
> 
> I like the Why/What/How order. The overall document looks pretty good to 
> me now. A few comments for consideration:
> 
> # Intro Para.1 "... location, or physical or mental ability. 
> Accessibility focuses on this last aspect, and overlaps with the others"
> Is there a danger that some might read "this last aspect" to just mean 
> "mental ability"? 

I had thought of that, but figured it was a low risk. Even if they did, it's clear in the next sentence that we're broader.

> Maybe the sentence could be "Accessibility focuses on 
> this last aspect - ability - and overlaps with the others"

We proposed that in the EOWG telecon and people were against it, and I agree.

I think I'll just go back to sentence from last draft: "Accessibility focuses on one aspect of this, and overlaps with others." It leaves a little intrigue (which aspect?!?) to be answered in the next sections.

> # Intro Para.2 "When websites and web tools are not accessible, they 
> disable people." I keep wanting to say "... disable people from x & y" 

Yup, my previous draft used "not disabling people from using your website or web software."

> Could we say "When websites and web tools are not accessible, they 
> cause/create disability for people."?

This gets into the challenging area we have taken ourselves into.

I don't think it will work to say "they cause disability" because 'disability' is so strongly thought of as a characteristic of an individual (as opposed to individual-environment). I think people would read that as "an inaccessible website makes a person's vision get worse", which is of course ridiculous, and then we've lost them to the point we're trying to make.

I think the short and blunt wording makes the point stronger: "When websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people." But would a lot of people still not get it -- because it's so radically different from most people's understanding. Or, given that it's spelled out throughout the paragraph, is it OK?

Here's the paragraph: "When the web meets its full potential, it is accessible to everyone, including people with a diverse range of hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability. The flexibility of the web enables most people with impairments to use the web just as well as anyone. Think about what this means: There is inherently no such thing as a disability using the web. ... However: When websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people."

Hum, now that I read it in context, you almost could say they cause disabilities, because of the previous sentence. But I'm still hesitant, partly because if taken out of context, it doesn't work at all.

*EOWG active participants*, please comment on:
a. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people.
b. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people from using them.
c. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they cause disability.
d. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they cause disability for people.


> # Intro Listing - I know it comes from the template for these pages, but 
> having the list titled "Learn more below" and then a list item of "learn 
> more" strikes me as odd. Could we title the list "Find out more below"?

I'm going to try taking it off all together and see how that works. EOWG, check out the latest draft and let me know if you think something is needed to introduce that list of in-page links.

> # alt-text example - removing mention of visual browsers and tool-tips 
> is good
> 
> # Learn More - would it be better to link the guideline names and 
> acronyms (not just the acronyms)? I find the acronym link gets lost 
> visually at the rhs.

I thought it was too cluttered with all of it linked. Plus, lots of people know the acronym better that the spelled out words. For those who don't it's probably easier to read the words when they're not underlined. And since it's a list of resources, people should find the link OK. But I don't feel strongly either way, and am quite happy to go with the groups' preference or a strong point for better accessibility or usability of either option.

EOWG, please comment on options:
- link acronym only, as in http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090821a#learn
- link full name and acronym, as in 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090818a#learn

> # Use It - maybe "How PWD use the Web", the "WCAG Overview" page and 
> then "Managing" and "Evaluating"? (I'm thinking understand it link, then 
> three links about doing it.)

Thanks for the ideas. I wonder if just putting WCAG is counter to our wanting to shift focus to ATAG & UAAG? Also, lots of people are interested in WAI-ARIA these days.

(tangent: need to see about getting the overview pages added to the in pages linked from the "current status" section above)

I need to check what the expectation is from the W3C site level for this area. Anyway, I think I'm going to leave it low priority for now, as we need to get the rest of the page ready for public posting soon.

Regards,
~Shawn

> Cheers, Andrew
> 
> ---
> Andrew Arch
> Web Accessibility and Ageing Specialist
> http://www.w3.org/People/Andrew/
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/
> 
> Shawn Henry wrote:
>> EOWG,
>>
>> The draft Accessibility page for beta.w3.org has been updated based on 
>> Friday's EOWG discussion.
>>
>> * Latest draft: 
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c
>> * Analysis & Changelog: 
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-2009-w3c-site-redesign
>> * Important background: in e-mail forwarded below
>>
>> Please send comments to the mailing list early this week, as we 
>> discussed in the teleconference.
>> * Comments for discussion: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
>> * Typos and the like: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
>>
>> Regards,
>> ~Shawn
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Accessibility page for beta.w3.org
>> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:17:35 -0500
>> From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
>> To: EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>>
>> EOWG,
>>
>> New rough concept drafts of the Accessibility page for beta.w3.org are 
>> now available. *These are rough, unapproved ideas for discussion*. 
>> Please focus on overall issues (not detailed "wordsmithing") and 
>> realize these are individuals' ideas that are no where near agreement 
>> or completion.
>>
>> Please use the Analysis and Changelog page as your main page for this 
>> work. It is: 
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-2009-w3c-site-redesign
>>
>> * See that the goals and audiences are different from most of the WAI 
>> pages.
>>
>> * The first link is to the Accessibility page - latest version.
>>
>> * Right under there are links to examples HTML & CSS, 
>> Internationalization. Skimming through those you can see the type of 
>> information we might want to cover. Also note that much of the wrapper 
>> is a template defined by the W3C website redesign.
>>
>> * Previous drafts, links to minutes, email threads, and such are under 
>> "References and version notes". There are three very different drafts 
>> since last Friday:
>> - "17 Aug 2009 draft - a universality experimental version" is playing 
>> with the broader view of universality. Note that we are not planning 
>> to make this shift, yet the draft was an interesting exercise based on 
>> the 14 EOWG teleconference discussion.
>> - "18 Aug 2009 draft L - the minimalist version" is another 
>> perspective resulting from that discussion. (note that, while 
>> eloquent, this one doesn't use the current beta.w3.org template 
>> design, as noted in previous email)
>> - "14-18 Aug EOWG mailing list archives" has several e-mails that are 
>> relevant, with subject "Re: stab at betaw3"
>>
>> Please look over these drafts, and the latest at 
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c
>>
>> Feel free to send comments to the list and/or prepare for discussion 
>> at the upcoming EOWG teleconference.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ~Shawn
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Shawn Lawton Henry
>> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>> e-mail: shawn@w3.org
>> phone: +1.617.395.7664
>> about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
>>
>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 14:36:49 UTC