Re: Thanks for your survey comments

Hi Sharron,

Thank you for your replies on my comments. Please see a few replies 
inline below.

On 10/13/2018 4:40 PM, Sharron Rush wrote:
> Thanks Judy, I appreciate your time and helpful comments. Here is my 
> response:
>
> - Title: As I was re-reading this near-final version, I noticed that 
> almost all of the discussion is about digital accessibility, rather 
> than accessibility for the built environment, transportation, etc. I'm 
> wondering if EOWG considered "The Business Case for Digital 
> Accessibility." But fine as is, if people don't want to revisit that 
> at this time.
>
> SR: Good suggestion, done!

Thanks! I should note that my suggestion here is specific to the context 
of this resource, because of its scope. For most of our materials, "Web 
and mobile accessibility" is probably still the most relevant term.
>
> - For the "Note" at the bottom of the Summary, I suggest using 
> "...include web and mobile applications, and other digital 
> technologies" which would make it more consistent with "web and mobile 
> applications" used elsewhere in WAI materials.
>
> SR: Done
Thanks.
>
> - Copyedit suggestion at "to the legal and equity aspects, while..." 
> (long, and hard to parse otherwise)
>
> SR: Changed as follows, please advise if it meets the simplification goal:
> "...different aspects will be relevant depending on the organizational 
> focus and purpose. For example, government agencies may be strongly 
> motivated by legal and equity aspects. Commercial businesses may be 
> more persuaded by innovation and market expansion opportunities. 
> Educational and nonprofit businesses may be especially drawn to brand 
> enhancement. It is most likely your business will respond to a mix of 
> motivating factors as you consider implementing an integrated 
> accessibility program.

Sounds clear; thanks!
>
>
> - Spacing bug after benefits in Paul Smyth's quote
> SR: Created GitHub issue, assigned to Eric
>
> - First three "Drive Innovation" bulleted phrases seem hard to parse, 
> and "Interaction Design" maybe should be "Interactive Design"
>
> SR: I applied edits to the first two bullets but do not see the 
> complexity in the third one. Suggestion welcome.  Currently reads as 
> follows:
> -   Accessible design thinking provides varied and flexible ways for 
> users to interact with websites and applications, options that are 
> useful for people with and without disabilities.
>
> -   Design of user interaction considers experiences other than 
> screens when accessibility is a consideration. The result is 
> interaction that is more human-centered, natural, and contextual.
>
> -   Accessibility is closely related to general usability – both aim 
> to define and deliver a more intuitive user experience.
These look good. Thanks.

>
> - Please don't use "blind patients" phrasing -- unnecessary medicalization
> SR: They were in fact patients in a medical study. However I changed 
> it to "participants."

I think that "participants" is a good swap, especially since many 
readers of this document may not be aware of the context for this 
section, and could therefore take anything in the document as model 
language regardless of the context in which they might re-use the 
phrasing. And sometimes these days, even in medical settings, some 
researchers are looking for alternative wording to "patients."

>
> - Phrasing about Apple and Google being innovators -- wondering if 
> this could be tweaked so as to avoid sounding as though others aren't
> SR: Changed to "The following case studies from two large technology 
> companies provide useful examples for companies of all sizes.

Much more neutral, thanks.

>
> - Copyedit - I think "As well" isn't typically used at the beginning 
> of sentences (could just use "also")
> SR: Several have remarked on this but since it was submitted by the 
> Apple accessibility lead. I hesitate to edit without her permission. I 
> have asked for it and will make the change in the meantime with the 
> understanding that if she objects to this or any of the following, I 
> may have to change back or remove entirely. (unlikely IMO)

Understood.
>
> - Phrasing -- also "would have on the blind" ...on people who are 
> blind? Also, later, "the deaf" -- we try to avoid sounding like 
> disabilities are monolithic groups
> SR: Again, her phrase but I changed it to "their blind customers" and 
> "auto-captioning using machine learning has been problematic for the 
> main target population of deaf users..."

Thanks. And perhaps these updates would be interesting information for 
her, with regard to how their phrasing might land with some customers.
>
> - "Apple led the charge in striving" -- sounds less like 
> vendor-neutral text than most of the rest of the document
> SR: I am not comfortable changing this without her permission since it 
> is part of the reason they agreed and it is not a view that is 
> significantly  challenged - Apple made real accessibility commitments 
> before either MicroSoft or Google as their overwhelmingly wide 
> adoption by the community illustrates.

This is a complex question. Brief comments here: Microsoft made public 
accessibility commitments, accompanied by significant personnel 
allocations and technical commitments, starting in 1995; and they have 
been recognized in various ways for their resulting improvements over 
the years. Other companies, including IBM, had made accessibility 
commitments and technical progress starting even before that. In more 
recent years, Apple has indeed stepped up, and excelled in specific 
areas sometimes ahead of other companies. But there seems to be an 
implied historical view in the quote here, paired with a broad 
statement, and that goes beyond what we would typically say in a W3C 
document. Here's a suggestion for a minor tweak: "...Apple has made a 
strong commitment to striving for inclusion for all." Completely true, 
and it doesn't imply that they were necessarily first to the table.

>
> - Barclay's 2nd quote needs quote attribution
> SR: Done

Thanks
>
> - For the Forrester quote, maybe indicate "commissioned by Microsoft"
> SR: That was the original but Shawn asked me to remove it, y'all arm 
> wrestle or something and let me know :)

We arm-wrestled... err, chatted actually :)  Shawn said she's fine with 
re-adding the "commissioned by..." as clarifying language.
>
> - For UN CRPD mention, note that that there is more than one relevant 
> reference -- you can reference Articles 9 and 21
> SR: Happy to, please let me know more specifically how/where you would 
> like to see those referenced. Thanks

Sharron, sorry, I owe you wording on this one! Will try to send on Tuesday.
>
> - Public use of the Internet -- I think is much more than 25 years 
> old. Do you mean public use of the Web?
> SR: Good point, yes!
>
> These were terrifically helpful comments Judy. Thank you!

Thanks very much Sharron for your work on this, and your consideration 
of my comments!

Best,

- Judy
>
> Best,
> Sharron
>
>
> -- 
> Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
> /Equal access to technology for people with disabilities/