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

re: bcase review

From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:12:18 -0600
To: "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004001c416ac$72b5ce80$418d7544@SLHenry>

Judy,

Most changes are incorporated in updated documents online. Previous
versions (that you commented on) are at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/*-old.html

My comments are surrounded by brackets ([...]) below. Those with "???"
are questions for you.

The overview comments below are marked "[noted]" - because I put the
suggestion in the document so it is there when I rewrite it.

Feel free to respond via e-mail or phone, whichever is easiest.

Best,

~ Shawn


[DONE]  1. overview -- title:   i need to send this to the list.

[noted] 2. overview -- first bulleted list:   how about adding, after
"technical 
performance," "it improves usability across a variety of different kinds
of 
devices" (or something similar)

[noted] 3. overview -- first bulleted list:   how about, instead of "it
reinforces 
an organization's social responsibility position" or something like
that, 
rather than just "showing a commitment"

[noted] 4. overview -- introduction -- first P:  instead of "have
different 
requirements" how about "require different elements"

[DONE] 5. overview -- identify -- first S:  "start by identifying"
rather than 
"start by asking"

[DONE] 6. overview -- identify -- first list:  "with regard to
accessible 
information and communications technology" rather than "...services"? 
"services" here seems confusing

[DONE] 7. overview -- identify -- second list:  i suggest flipping the
order of 
the two items in the list

[noted] 8. overview -- sample -- corporation:   "a commitment to social 
responsibility" replace with "socially responsible activity" or some
such 
(e.g. not just a commitment, but the action)

[noted] 9. overview -- sample -- NGO:   the first and third bullet sound
a little 
redundant. how about collapsing into one item, e.g. "social
responsibility 
factors including the organization's commitment to human rights
including 
the right to information

[DONE] 10. overview -- resources:  now that we have a "references" page,
this 
"related resources" section seems redundant -- how about completely 
dropping it from the bottom of each of the sub-pages?

[DONE] 11. social -- introduction -- 2nd P:  "one organization's goal
might be 
demonstrating leadership" how about replacing with "one organization's
goal 
might be to become a leader in..."

[DONE in header. changed to "determine" in sentence since the page
already  identifies the issues, and the questions help you know which &
how to cover the  issues in a customized case] 11. social -- focusing:
how about replacing  "focusing" with "identifying" 
in the header and the first P

[in progress] 12. social -- focusing:  seems like most of the P's in
this section  need a 
little copy-editing, they are a bit hard to understand or the
explanations 
seem rough, sorry I don't have specific suggestions at this time

[DONE - deleted, think the idea is covered in previous questions] 13.
social --  focusing -- which avenues:  the text in this P sounds a bit 
over-the-top

[DONE & then had to edited sentence to make it work w/o phrase] 14.
social --  social issue -- the Web pervades:  i suggest removing "or 
even the only medium, totally..."

[???: don't want to use the entire checkpoint text, how about: "clear
and simple  language as appropriate"] 15. social -- benefits -- low
literacy:  "clear and simple  language" needs 
to be replaced with the accurate text from the checkpoint, so as to make

sure that we don't reinforce myths about us. The actual text is "Use the

clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content"

[DONE, broke up sentence into 2 & cut down issues listed] 16. technical
--  introduction -- 2nd P:  the first S in this P is long and 
somewhat confusing.

[DONE] 17. technical -- focusing: how about "identifying"

[DONE, added "Incorporating accessibility usually increases site
development time  initially, as discussed in Financial Factors. However,
in the long term... "] 18:  technical -- dev & maint time:  there's a
credibility problem here. i 
think you need to first say that there may be an upfront investment of
time 
and resources in order to reap the rewards of reduced development and 
maintenance time -- even though we say that again on the financial
factors 
page.

[integrated most, left in: "Reduce the size of each page served by
defining  presentation in style sheets (which are only requested once
per session), rather  than each page's HTML, and by using text rather
than images" and "... different  configurations -- including different
devices, operating systems, and user agents  (such as Web browsers)"]
19: technical -- whole page: apart from parentheses  indicating
checkpoint 
references, would make it easier to read if parenthetical narrative 
comments were eliminated and/or integrated into the primary narrative
text.

[DONE] 20. financial -- focusing: identifying, or highlighting, instead?

[???: done - pls check if good enough] 21. financial -- focusing --
alternative  formats:  careful about creating 
the impression that making an organization's Web site accessible may 
completely preclude the need to provide materials in alternative
formats.

[in progress] 22. financial -- overall:  there is an overwhelming amount
of content  in 
this section of the resource suite, to the extent that it becomes hard
to 
follow, and there are a number of overlaps with other sections. might be

useful to do another copy-editing pass at it to prune words &
double-check 
for any redundances that could summarized more briefly.

[DONE] 23. legal -- focusing: identifying

[noted in doc to edit & move] 24. legal -- focusing: "is it helpful to
include the risk  of failing..." -- 
confusing

[???: don't understand revision suggestion] 25. legal -- considerations:
needs  reference link to policy references page 
early on in this section, to back up the statements

[???: significantly edited, would be good to re-read] 26. legal --
multiple: 1st P is  confusing, especially where it says 
"ideally..." I think that the problem is that the document focus is 
switching here from presenting elements of a business case to expressing
an 
opinion about how things ought to work. I think we must stick with the 
facts here. 2nd P I believe could be condensed, and maybe even combined 
with 1st P. 3rd P again sounds out-of-place, as it reads like opinion
not 
fact.

[DONE] 27. references -- introduction:  I think that the introduction
could be 
expanded a bit to say that the references below are available for two 
purposes: (1) to provide documentation for some of the statements in the

resource suite, and (2) to demonstrate the types of information that are

available from different sources, w/ the understanding that people 
compiling a business case in some cases may need to search for local 
information sources.

###

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Brewer [mailto:jbrewer@w3.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:51 PM
> To: Shawn Lawton Henry
...
> 1. overview -- title:   i need to send this to the list.
> 
> 2. overview -- first bulleted list:   how about adding, after 
> "technical 
> performance," "it improves usability across a variety of 
> different kinds of 
> devices" (or something similar)
> 
> 3. overview -- first bulleted list:   how about, instead of 
> "it reinforces 
> an organization's social responsibility position" or 
> something like that, 
> rather than just "showing a commitment"
> 
> 4. overview -- introduction -- first P:  instead of "have different 
> requirements" how about "require different elements"
> 
> 5. overview -- identify -- first S:  "start by identifying" 
> rather than 
> "start by asking"
> 
> 6. overview -- identify -- first list:  "with regard to accessible 
> information and communications technology" rather than "...services"? 
> "services" here seems confusing
> 
> 7. overview -- identify -- second list:  i suggest flipping 
> the order of 
> the two items in the list
> 
> 8. overview -- sample -- corporation:   "a commitment to social 
> responsibility" replace with "socially responsible activity" 
> or some such 
> (e.g. not just a commitment, but the action)
> 
> 9. overview -- sample -- NGO:   the first and third bullet 
> sound a little 
> redundant. how about collapsing into one item, e.g. "social 
> responsibility 
> factors including the organization's commitment to human 
> rights including 
> the right to information
> 
> 10. overview -- resources:  now that we have a "references" 
> page, this 
> "related resources" section seems redundant -- how about completely 
> dropping it from the bottom of each of the sub-pages?
> 
> 11. social -- introduction -- 2nd P:  "one organization's 
> goal might be 
> demonstrating leadership" how about replacing with "one 
> organization's goal 
> might be to become a leader in..."
> 
> 11. social -- focusing:  how about replacing "focusing" with 
> "identifying" 
> in the header and the first P
> 
> 12. social -- focusing:  seems like most of the P's in this 
> section need a 
> little copy-editing, they are a bit hard to understand or the 
> explanations 
> seem rough, sorry I don't have specific suggestions at this time
> 
> 13. social -- focusing -- which avenues:  the text in this P 
> sounds a bit 
> over-the-top
> 
> 14. social -- social issue -- the Web pervades:  i suggest 
> removing "or 
> even the only medium, totally..."
> 
> 15. social -- benefits -- low literacy:  "clear and simple 
> language" needs 
> to be replaced with the accurate text from the checkpoint, so 
> as to make 
> sure that we don't reinforce myths about us. The actual text 
> is "Use the 
> clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content"
> 
> 16. technical -- introduction -- 2nd P:  the first S in this 
> P is long and 
> somewhat confusing.
> 
> 17. technical -- focusing: how about "identifying"
> 
> 18: technical -- dev & maint time:  there's a credibility 
> problem here. i 
> think you need to first say that there may be an upfront 
> investment of time 
> and resources in order to reap the rewards of reduced development and 
> maintenance time -- even though we say that again on the 
> financial factors 
> page.
> 
> 19: technical -- whole page: apart from parentheses 
> indicating checkpoint 
> references, would make it easier to read if parenthetical narrative 
> comments were eliminated and/or integrated into the primary 
> narrative text.
> 
> 20. financial -- focusing: identifying, or highlighting, instead?
> 
> 21. financial -- focusing -- alternative formats:  careful 
> about creating 
> the impression that making an organization's Web site accessible may 
> completely preclude the need to provide materials in 
> alternative formats.
> 
> 22. financial -- overall:  there is an overwhelming amount of 
> content in 
> this section of the resource suite, to the extent that it 
> becomes hard to 
> follow, and there are a number of overlaps with other 
> sections. might be 
> useful to do another copy-editing pass at it to prune words & 
> double-check 
> for any redundances that could summarized more briefly.
> 
> 23. legal -- focusing: identifying
> 
> 24. legal -- focusing: "is it helpful to include the risk of 
> failing..." -- 
> confusing
> 
> 25. legal -- considerations: needs reference link to policy 
> references page 
> early on in this section, to back up the statements
> 
> 26. legal -- multiple: 1st P is confusing, especially where it says 
> "ideally..." I think that the problem is that the document focus is 
> switching here from presenting elements of a business case to 
> expressing an 
> opinion about how things ought to work. I think we must stick 
> with the 
> facts here. 2nd P I believe could be condensed, and maybe 
> even combined 
> with 1st P. 3rd P again sounds out-of-place, as it reads like 
> opinion not 
> fact.
> 
> 27. references -- introduction:  I think that the 
> introduction could be 
> expanded a bit to say that the references below are available for two 
> purposes: (1) to provide documentation for some of the 
> statements in the 
> resource suite, and (2) to demonstrate the types of 
> information that are 
> available from different sources, w/ the understanding that people 
> compiling a business case in some cases may need to search for local 
> information sources.
> 
> ###
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 18:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:18:31 UTC