W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > April 2004

RE: Comments on: Re: business case status as of 2 April 2004 & review notes

From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:04:56 -0500
To: "'Sylvie Duchateau'" <sylvie.duchateau@snv.jussieu.fr>
Cc: "wai eo editors" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c4219a$f99af9e0$418d7544@SLHenry>

Sylvie,

Thank you for your review and comments on the business case. I will post
a revised version with your changes and other's changes soon. 

Replies to your comments are below indicated with my initials (SLH) and
surrounded by brackets [SLH: ]. Let me know if you want to discuss any
of them.

Regards,

~ Shawn



1. General questions:

a) On title change.
Question: Now that we have decided to change the title of the document
from 
"Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility" to: "Developing a Web 
Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization", should the following

sentence (for example in technical factors) in the introduction be
changed 
too?

Actual sentence: "This page describes financial factors relating to Web 
accessibility. It is part of a resource suite that also describes the 
social, technical, and legal and policy factors for consideration in 
presenting a case for Web accessibility." Changing to: "This page
describes 
financial factors relating to Web accessibility. It is part of a
resource 
suite that also describes the social, technical, and legal and policy 
factors for consideration in developing a Web accessibility business
case 
for your organization".
[SLH: DONE] 

I suppose that such phrases occur several times through all the
documents.
[SLH: I search for it throughout and surprisingly it was no where else] 

As I said at last call, I can live with the title change, although I
think 
it is very long. But I wonder what the phrase "in your organization" 
exactly means? Does it mean that you talk directly to the people 
responsible of one organization? If so, we cannot speak about one 
organization anymore but all the time state: if your organization is a 
governmental organization, you should think about this or that.
Example: in financial factors you have the phrase: "An organization's 
efforts to make its Web site accessible often has a financial impact,
and 
can result in positive return on investment and cost efficiencies." Does

the new title mean we would have to write: "The efforts of your 
organization to make its Web site accessible often have a financial
impact, 
and can result in positive return on investment and cost efficiencies."
[SLH: There was some discussion about using "for your organization"
versus "for  a specific organization" in the title. We agreed to use
"for a specific organization"  throughout the body of the document. Most
of the group thought it was simplier  to use "for your organization" in
the title even though throughout this and other  documents we do not use
"you" and "your".] 

I am not sure if this comment is understandable. My question here is in 
relation to the world "your" in the title of the document.
[SLH: I understand perfectly!] 

2. Comments to the different pages:
a) In social factor page:
I still have difficulties (when reading it) remebering what CSR
(corporate 
social responsibility) and SRI (socially responsible investing) means.
Is 
it a current phrase in English? Question to those who want to translate
it 
into other languages: what effect do we intend with those acronyms?
Should 
we invent an acronym in the translations of the document?
[SLH: I removed the acronyms from the introductory paragraph and only
use CSR  near where it is written out. corporate social responsibility
is common terminology  throughout the world. for translation, I think
you can easily find the term in native  language documents on the Web] 

b) In technical factors.
Introduction :
"For example, an organization with very limited personnel resources
might 
be more interested in reducing site development and maintenance time,
while 
another organization that focuses
on cutting-edge technology might be more interested in interoperability
and 
being prepared for advanced Web technologies"
To my mind, this is a very long sentence, and it seems to me not easy to

follow what it exactly meant. In particular, I wonder how I could
translate 
"cutting-edge technology" and if it is a current wording in English or 
rather jargon.
[SLH: I think "cutting-edge technology" is not too jargony for anyone
reading this  document.] 

- in: "Reduce Site Development and Maintenance Time"
First list, first bullet:
". Reduce site-wide style change time and effort by defining
presentation 
through a style sheet and using proper HTML to markup structure. (WCAG
1.0 
Checkpoint
3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 5.4) [@@ need to explain that can change in one

style sheet, rather then in each HTML page @@]"
The sentence is not clear to me. Moreover, after the list of checkpoint 
there is still an action item. Will it be edited after Wednesday or will
it 
stay as it is?
[SLH: it will be edited after Wednesday, before the next review]

- In bullet: "reduce redesign and translation time" there is also an
action 
item. Do you expect us to write something or is it planned to be edited 
after Wednesday?
[SLH: it will be edited after Wednesday, before the next review]

- In the paragraph: "Be Prepared for Advanced Web Technologies" first
bullet:  "Allow for syndication of information by using metadata and
representing it 
using resource description framework (RDF) . (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 13.2)"
Is  the term "syndication of information a current term that can be 
understood by anybody?
[SLH: I will try to clarify it before the next review]

- Second bullet: ". Simplify migration and backwards-compatibility by 
defining presentation through a style sheet, using proper HTML@@ to
markup 
structure..." Is the term "migration and backwards-compatibility" usual 
term and can it be understood by anybody?
[SLH: I think it might be too much to explain here, ane people who need
to know  what it is already do. Anyway, I will take a look at it in the
next editing pass] 

Translation questions:
In financial factors: viral marketing. For those who are not native
speakers is this  clear enough 
and do you think it is possible to translate it in your language?
[SLH: I think the two words should translate easily. "viral" is a
medical term, as in  virus that spreads] 

c) In financial factors:
In the part "initial cost" in "Potential initial capital expenditures 
related to Web accessibility include:" Purchasing assistive
technologies". 
We should not forget that it is not enough to purchase assistive 
technologies. But people should also follow a training on how to use and

implement assistive technologies to test their Web site. Or something 
should be written on asking people using those technologies to test the 
sites. What do you think?
[SLH: "Purchasing assistive technologies" is under "initial capital
expenditures" so  that wouldn't include training or hiring people to
test. We have "training and skills  development" and "Incorporating
accessibility into protocols and procedures, such  as quality assurance
testing and usability evaluation" earlier in the document and  "Testing
design ideas and early prototypes with assistive technologies" later in
the  document. Also, I just added "Many organizations starting Web
accessibility hire  employees or consultants with accessibility
expertise, such as people with  disabilities to help with testing."] 

- In section "on-going costs" in the bullet: additional testing time. 
Wouldn't it be useful to add something explaining how tests should be 
fullfilled with assistive technologies: in inviting users or in asking 
people of the organization to test the prototypes with assistive 
technologies they have learned to use? Or does it imply that the 
organization has employees with disabilities using those assistive 
technologies?
[SLH: the purpose of this page is to explain financial factors
associated with web  accessibility, rather than providing guidance on
how to test]

If they ask people outside of the organisation to test their prototypes
is 
there a cost to add (pay people who do the test) or is there a problem
of 
confidentiality because people are testing internal Web sites? If the
tests are done  inside of the organisation: it means that people who 
do the test have to know the assistive technology, that is they have to
be 
trained to use assistive technologies. (that costs time). Or if they are

disabled it means that they have to invest time testing the site (this 
should be included in the part on additional time to make Web sites 
accessible).
[SLH: I think this is covered by the sections I mention in my comments
above,  again, remembering that we are only pointing to costs here and
not addressing  other implementation issues.] 

- In section Identifying Legal and Policy Factors for a Specific 
Organization, bullet: Identifying Legal and Policy Factors for a
Specific 
Organization
Bullet:  @@ think this needs to be a section below & not a question@@ Is
it 
helpful to include the risk of failing to provide accessible Web
sites?." I 
do not understand what this exactly meeans.
[SLH: "@@" is an indication of something that needs additional editing,
which I will do before the next review]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sylvie Duchateau
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:05 AM
> To: 'EOWG (E-mail)'
> Subject: Comments on: Re: business case status as of 2 April 
> 2004 & review notes
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Shawn and all,
> 
> I could at last read the business case documents "from top to 
> toe", as Judy 
> says. I have some comments that you can find below.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sylvie
> 
> 1. General questions:
> 
> a) On title change.
> Question: Now that we have decided to change the title of the 
> document from 
> "Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility" to: "Developing a Web 
> Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization", should 
> the following 
> sentence (for example in technical factors) in the 
> introduction be changed 
> too?
> 
> Actual sentence: "This page describes financial factors 
> relating to Web 
> accessibility. It is part of a resource suite that also describes the 
> social, technical, and legal and policy factors for consideration in 
> presenting a case for Web accessibility." Changing to: "This 
> page describes 
> financial factors relating to Web accessibility. It is part 
> of a resource 
> suite that also describes the social, technical, and legal and policy 
> factors for consideration in developing a Web accessibility 
> business case 
> for your organization".
> 
> I suppose that such phrases occur several times through all 
> the documents.
> 
> As I said at last call, I can live with the title change, 
> although I think 
> it is very long. But I wonder what the phrase "in your organization" 
> exactly means? Does it mean that you talk directly to the people 
> responsible of one organization? If so, we cannot speak about one 
> organization anymore but all the time state: if your 
> organization is a 
> governmental organization, you should think about this or that.
> Example: in financial factors you have the phrase: "An organization's 
> efforts to make its Web site accessible often has a financial 
> impact, and 
> can result in positive return on investment and cost 
> efficiencies." Does 
> the new title mean we would have to write: "The efforts of your 
> organization to make its Web site accessible often have a 
> financial impact, 
> and can result in positive return on investment and cost 
> efficiencies."
> 
> I am not sure if this comment is understandable. My question 
> here is in 
> relation to the world "your" in the title of the document.
> 
> 2. Comments to the different pages:
> a) In social factor page:
> I still have difficulties (when reading it) remebering what 
> CSR (corporate 
> social responsibility) and SRI (socially responsible 
> investing) means. Is 
> it a current phrase in English? Question to those who want to 
> translate it 
> into other languages: what effect do we intend with those 
> acronyms? Should 
> we invent an acronym in the translations of the document?
> b) In technical factors.
> Introduction :
> "For example, an organization with very limited personnel 
> resources might 
> be more interested in reducing site development and 
> maintenance time, while 
> another organization that focuses
> on cutting-edge technology might be more interested in 
> interoperability and 
> being prepared for advanced Web technologies"
> To my mind, this is a very long sentence, and it seems to me 
> not easy to 
> follow what it exactly meant. In particular, I wonder how I 
> could translate 
> "cutting-edge technology" and if it is a current wording in 
> English or 
> rather jargon.
> 
> - in: "Reduce Site Development and Maintenance Time"
> First list, first bullet:
> ". Reduce site-wide style change time and effort by defining 
> presentation 
> through a style sheet and using proper HTML to markup 
> structure. (WCAG 1.0 
> Checkpoint
> 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 5.4) [@@ need to explain that can 
> change in one 
> style sheet, rather then in each HTML page @@]"
> The sentence is not clear to me. Moreover, after the list of 
> checkpoint 
> there is still an action item. Will it be edited after 
> Wednesday or will it 
> stay as it is?
> 
> 
> - In bullet: "reduce redesign and translation time" there is 
> also an action 
> item. Do you expect us to write something or is it planned to 
> be edited 
> after Wednesday?
> 
> - In the paragraph: "Be Prepared for Advanced Web 
> Technologies" first bullet: "Allow for syndication of 
> information by using metadata and representing it 
> using resource description framework (RDF) . (WCAG 1.0 
> Checkpoint 13.2)" Is the term "syndication of information a 
> current term that can be 
> understood by anybody?
> - Second bullet: ". Simplify migration and backwards-compatibility by 
> defining presentation through a style sheet, using proper 
> HTML@@ to markup 
> structure..." Is the term "migration and 
> backwards-compatibility" usual 
> term and can it be understood by anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation questions:
> In financial factors:
> viral marketing. For those who are not native speakers is 
> this clear enough 
> and do you think it is possible to translate it in your language?
> 
> c) In financial factors:
> In the part "initial cost" in "Potential initial capital expenditures 
> related to Web accessibility include:" Purchasing assistive 
> technologies". 
> We should not forget that it is not enough to purchase assistive 
> technologies. But people should also follow a training on how 
> to use and 
> implement assistive technologies to test their Web site. Or something 
> should be written on asking people using those technologies 
> to test the 
> sites. What do you think?
> 
> 
> - In section "on-going costs" in the bullet: additional testing time. 
> Wouldn't it be useful to add something explaining how tests should be 
> fullfilled with assistive technologies: in inviting users or 
> in asking 
> people of the organization to test the prototypes with assistive 
> technologies they have learned to use? Or does it imply that the 
> organization has employees with disabilities using those assistive 
> technologies?
> If they ask people outside of the organisation to test their 
> prototypes is 
> there a cost to add (pay people who do the test) or is there 
> a problem of 
> confidentiality because people are testing internal Web 
> sites? If the tests are done inside of the organisation: it 
> means that people who 
> do the test have to know the assistive technology, that is 
> they have to be 
> trained to use assistive technologies. (that costs time). Or 
> if they are 
> disabled it means that they have to invest time testing the 
> site (this 
> should be included in the part on additional time to make Web sites 
> accessible).
> 
> - In section Identifying Legal and Policy Factors for a Specific 
> Organization, bullet: Identifying Legal and Policy Factors 
> for a Specific 
> Organization
> Bullet:  @@ think this needs to be a section below & not a 
> question@@ Is it 
> helpful to include the risk of failing to provide accessible 
> Web sites?." I 
> do not understand what this exactly meeans.
> 
> [End of comments]
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:05:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:10 GMT