RE: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Approval – Changes to Media Resource Summary'

Hi Shawn, Thanks for following up. Neither issue is showstopping for me. Just suggestions to consider. 
- After reading rational of the first issue, I am fine with leaving.
- After listening to the discuss in the meeting today around the second issue, AND hearing you say it out loud during the meeting, I am in favor of leaving it as it was.

Carry on. 😊


-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> 
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:02 PM
To: Bakken, Brent <Brent.Bakken@Pearson.com>
Cc: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Approval – Changes to Media Resource Summary'

Hi Brent,

Thank you for your careful review and comments.

Brent Bakken via WBS Mailer wrote:
...
> Comments:
> Okay to publish as is. Very well done. Just two suggestions to 
> consider, but leave it up to editor discretion.
> 
> Sixth Bullet: "Provide a text transcript from the caption text and the 
> description of visual information so that people who are Deaf-blind 
> *get* the video content." - Not sure I like the work "get." Could 
> something slightly more formal be used here: "can access," etc.

I go agree with you that it's not totally smooth.

I don't want to say "...people who are Deaf-blind can access the video content." because 1. they can't directly, and 2. we try to avoid this use of "access" since it's so close to "accessibility" but different.

I also note that "get" is in the other sentences. Interesting that it bothered you in this one. :-)

I spent a little thought trying to come up with other options, and didn't come up with any that I felt were better.

I'll keep it in the back of my mind and maybe something will come to me later.

> 
> Seventh Bullet: "Provide sign language so that Deaf people whose 
> native language is *sign* get the content in their language." - Don't 
> like the second use of the word "sign." How about... "Provide sign 
> language so that Deaf people whose native language is signing can 
> receive the content in their language."

humm -- I wonder which is more comfortable among people who sign?

Grammatically, I think this is correct:
 "Provide sign language so that Deaf people whose native language is sign ..."
as a shorter version of:
 "Provide sign language so that Deaf people whose native language is sign language...."
(e.g., replace:
 "Provide German translation so that people whose native language is German ..."

I think "signing" would be grammatically incorrect.

However, if it's colloquially common and comfortable around the world, I'd be happy to do it.

Do you want to pursue getting input from people who are Deaf?

~Shawn

Received on Friday, 18 December 2020 21:26:40 UTC