W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2009

w3.beta Comments for discussion

From: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:04:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4A93B733.40702@communis.co.uk>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
N.b. I have used a series of hyphens to break up each comment.

"The web is fundamentally designed to be available to all people, 
whatever their hardware, software, language, culture, location, or 
physical or mental ability. Accessibility focuses on one aspect of this, 
and overlaps with the others."

Suggest removing the second sentence. reasons:
1) Keeps it to one paragraph, one concept. Keeps it simple.
2) Removes the immediate source of confusion (huh? which aspect? What do 
you mean overlaps?)

You deal with the specifics in the next para in any case, so I don;t 
think you lose anything.

------------------------------

"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 exclude 
people from using the web.
[or:..., they disable people from using the web.]"


Suggest:

"The web should be accessible to everyone, including people with 
different levels of vision or hearing, different ranges of movement, 
different levels of literacy or cognitive function, different software, 
hardware or internet connection speeds.

The web radically changes the nature of disability - it removes barriers 
to communication and interaction. However, badly written web pages or 
technologies re-introduce these barriers.

The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative works to help legislators, 
programmers, developers, managers and site owners prevcent such barriers 
reappearing."

Reasons:
1) introduces the concept of moral agency on the part of programmers, 
developers, managers and site owners;
2) introduces the concept of bad practice (rather than simplyy the 
absence of good rpactice);
3) introduces the idea of accessibility as the intended default state of 
the web;
4) clarifies whether accessibility is must/should/may... currently it's 
a bit 'may. It should be 'should'.
5) Also references the stick - via 'legislators'.

------------------------------

"Why: The Case for Web Accessibility ... [whole section]"

Suggest:

"Why make a web site accessible?

The web must provide equal access and equal opportunity to people with 
diverse abilities. Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities recognizes _web accessibility as a basic human 
right_.

Keeping the web accessible to all is not only a matter of human rights; 
it also makes good business sense. Accessibility best practice 
substantially overlaps with best practice in disciplines such as mobile 
web design, device independence, multi-modal interaction, usability and 
search engine optimisation. Case studies show accessible websites 
achieving better search results, reducing maintenance costs, and 
increasing their audience reach, among other benefits. _Developing a Web 
Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization_ details the social, 
technical, financial, and legal benefits of web accessibility."

Reasons:
1) Introduces fewer concepts, one per para: accessibility is moral, 
accessibility is effective (financially, technically etc).
2) I suggest removing the "other users" para because it inevitably 
raises questions and challenges that should be dealt with in more 
detail. There is no room to do so here so suggest it be done deeper (as 
indeed it is)
3) Conciseness.

Problems: Gah! I can't squeeze in 'older users'. Needs to get across the 
idea that, in countries with aging populations, accessibility becomes 
even more important.

------------------------------

"What: Examples of Web Accessibility
Well designed websites and web tools can be used by people with 
disabilities. However, currently most are developed with accessibility 
barriers that make it difficult or impossible for some people to use 
them. Below are just a few examples."

Suggest

"What makes a website inaccessible?

Properly designed websites and web tools present no barriers to many 
people with disabilities. Unfortunately, some are developed with 
accessibility barriers that make it difficult or impossible for some 
people to use them. Below are just a few examples."

Reasons:
1) 'properly' implies the minimum acceptable standard... 'well' implies 
better than the acceptable standard.
2) flips the causal relationship round... 'present no barriers'. 'many 
people with disabilities' as serious cognitive disability is probably 
outside scope.
3) change from 'most' to 'some'. Most gives you the excuse that everyone 
else is doing it. 'Some' is still true, but changes the emphasis of 
expectation.
4) title is more explicit and relates to the examples

-------------------------

"How: Make Your Website Accessible [whole section]"

Suggest:

"How to keep your web site accessible

Many accessibility barriers can be easily removed. However, the 
techniques required are poorly integrated into some web tools, 
education, and development process. If you are new to accessibility, it 
takes some time and effort to learn the common issues and solutions. A 
starting place is the _Introduction to Web Accessibility_.

Some accessibility barriers are more complicated and take more 
development time and effort to remove. W3C provides extensive resources 
to help with this, such as _Understanding WCAG 2.0: A guide to 
understanding and implementing Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0_.

Using _authoring tools_ that support accessibility makes it easier for 
website developers. _Browsers_ [link to UAAG?] also play a role in 
accessibility. _Essential Components of Web Accessibility_ explains the 
relationships between the different components of Web development and 
interaction.

Reasons:
1) title change, alters expectation... your site should be accessible 
already! (It isn't? Oops! Quick, go fix it!) *and* you need to work to 
keep it that way. Reflects the change of emphasis in WCAG2.0 to dated 
conformance.
2) some gentle snipping, repeating of form of first para in second for 
rhetorical impact.
3) emphasis on accessibility *barriers* not issues, and removing 
barriers not solving issues. Better imagery, moves emphasis onto causal 
agency - you are actively preventing someone accessing rather than it 
being a blameless 'issue' to be 'solved'.

-----------------------------------

"Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at W3C
Because of the extreme importance of accessibility, W3C has a dedicated 
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). WAI brings together people from 
industry, disability organizations, government, and research labs from 
around the world to develop strategies, guidelines, and resources to 
help make the web accessible to people with disabilities, including 
auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual 
disabilities."


suggest:

"Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at W3C

The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative brings together people from 
industry, disability organizations, government, and research labs from 
around the world to develop _guidelines_ 
[link:http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process.php] and resources to help 
make the web accessible to people with disabilities, including auditory, 
cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities.

Individuals and organizations can _participate in WAI_ by volunteering 
to implement, promote, and review guidelines; by subscribing and 
contributing to the WAI interest group; or by regular and extensive 
participation in a working group."

Reasons:
1) I think the 'extreme importance' bit sounds like special pleading. We 
have already said it's important, I think we can just act as if everyone 
knows this by this point in the page.
2) the purpose of this section, I believe, is simply to establish our 
authority for pronouncing.
3) should emphasise that it draws on the whole community


That's my lot.

Regards to you all

L.

-- 
Liam McGee
Managing Director
Communis Ltd

t: +44 (0)1373 836 476
w: www.communis.co.uk
twit: www.twitter.com/liammcgee
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:05:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:56 GMT