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

Re: w3.beta Comments for discussion

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:25:02 -0500
Message-ID: <4A9456AE.405@w3.org>
To: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Thanks, Liam! The Reasons are especially helpful.

I'm integrating some into today's version which will be updated later tonight at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090825a

My thoughts below, preceded with SLH.

*EOWG*, please comment on the points below. (We also welcome comments from others who have been following this discussion, including Catherine & Laura.)

In an attempt to make below easier to follow and comment on, see:
* Liam's original e-mail without my comments interspersed, archived at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009JulSep/0078.html>
* A version with Liam's suggestions all implemented, which will later tonight be at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090825l

Liam McGee wrote:
> 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.

SLH: Sure.

> ------------------------------
> 
> "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.

SLH: We have decide to keep "accessibility" limited to related to disability. While I'm OK with having the first sentence broader (since it doesn't include "accessibility"), it seems it muddies the terminology to have software, hardware, and connection in this sentence that starts with accessible.

> 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.

*EOWG*: please comment on above paragraph.

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

*EOWG*: please comment on above paragraph.

SLH: I do like getting WAI in the early introduction. (fyi, we might not include "legislators" because of WAI's relationship with policies.)

> 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 simply the 
> absence of good practice);
> 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?

SLH: Does posing this as a question suggest that there is any question -- you know what I mean?

> 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_.

*EOWG* - how do you think readers will react to "The web must provide equal access and equal opportunity to people with diverse abilities." ?

> 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."

SLH: Like that it's shorter, too.

> 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)

SLH: Could link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/soc.html#groups

> 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?

*EOWG* - please comment on this as a subheading here.

> 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.

SLH: good.

> 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.

SLH: interesting point. (now too many "some"s)s

> 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.

SLH: I'm not convinced. :) "How to keep your web site accessible" conflicts with "Many accessibility barriers can be easily removed."

> 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'.

SLH: I prefer "avoiding barriers", rather than "removing barriers" because the latter assumes you've already put them there, or that they are inherently there.

> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> "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

SLH: especially like the addition of you can participate.


~Shawn

> That's my lot.
> 
> Regards to you all
> 
> L.
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 21:25:12 GMT

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