Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Publication Approval – Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes'

Hi Kevin,

Many thanks for your valuable feedback. Most of your comments have been 
addressed. Please see inline some clarifications:


On 15/10/2019 14:48, Kevin White via WBS Mailer wrote:
> Video 2: Seq 4: Is 'vendors' more US English? I would have used
> 'supplier'.

I'm OK with "supplier" but want to run past the group for more input.


> Video 2: Seq 6: This seems to repeat what is said in Seq 3. Not sure if
> this is a problem, maybe just flagging it for editorial thought.

Changed to:

- "Sometimes doing even only some of these checks can give you an 
indication of the overall accessibility."


> Video 3: Seq 7: Still not 100% on CD/CI - we don't expand the acronym and
> it is specific to one audience. I don't think it is a huge problem... it
> just jars a wee bit. Happy to go with consensus on this.

Changed to:

- "Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For 
example, into your web browser, content management system (C-M-S), and 
your development and deployment tools."


> Video 3: Seq 9: I think there is a 'so' missing from this seq. What might I
> do about inaccurate results? 'Make sure to do some spot checks of results'?
> 'Make sure you plan for a full technical audit'?

Changed this sequence to:

- "Yet be aware that tools can, in some cases, provide inaccurate 
results too."

And the following one to:

- "So avoid relying too much on what tools say over addressing the 
real-life experience of website users."


> Video 4: Seq 4: Still think this is an 'or' not an 'and' … maybe an
> 'and/or'. For example it is often not realistic to consider an audit before
> procuring a product (too many products, not enough time).

The starting sentence has the qualifier "often" already. These are all 
situations in which one will often want to evaluate, so I think "and" 
fits better than "or". Happy to discuss further as needed.


> Video 5: Seq 3: 'Many approach accessibility as a checklist to meet' -
> might not be the right form, current form sounds a bit funny when read
> out.

Changed to:

- "Unfortunately many approach accessibility just as a checklist."

Does this address your concern? It does not sound funny to my non-native 
English ears...


> Video 5: Seq 10: Suggest change from 'end-users' to 'users'. Makes it more
> consistent with term elsewhere and also avoids the risk of missing out
> other potential system users.

Good catch! Changed to:

- "Together these resources help you focus on accessibility for your 
website users rather than focusing on technical requirements only."


Thanks,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:03:27 UTC