Responses to the scripts for WCAG 2 videos

Hello,
I have replied to the survey for the scripts for WCAG 2 videos (except the first 3 that Justine had done), as discussed during our meeting last week. I will share my responses below.
Today in the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group meeting they discussed extending the opportunity to respond. If others would like to participate (new deadline is end of day Boston time on 2021-04-30): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAGvideos_batch1thorough/


Here are my responses. [e] indicates editorial, [i] indicates important.


Draft Script 2.4.7 "Focus Visible"

[i] Some of the sentences are long, which makes them more complex for some listeners (and those reading the transcript).



Here is an example:

" Alex has been a reporter for many years and has developed a repetitive strain injury, which makes it painful to use a mouse and to type for extended periods of time."

Suggested rewrite:  Alex has been a reporter for many years and has developed a repetitive strain injury. This makes it painful to use a mouse and to type for extended periods of time.



Another example:

"Good websites indicate the currently active links and controls, for example as a clearly visible rectangle around to highlight links and controls."

Suggested rewrite: Good websites show the currently active links and controls. This can be a clearly visible rectangle around an active link or control.



Tool that may be helpful when reviewing readability (though full disclosure this tool is not accessible for all): hemingwayapp.com



[i] For scene 4, it may be helpful for those not able to see the screen or those needing more information about the visuals to add something to the audio like:

As he presses the tab key, nothing changes on his screen to show him what has focus.



For both of these changes, I am recommending the scripts be reviewed with this in mind. I am not voting based on this exact wording.



Draft Script for 1.3.1

[i] Some viewers of the videos will not be highly technical. They may be document authors - especially for this video. Because of this, I recommend removing in scene 5 the sentence "Fortunately the content management system used at her company generates good mark-up." It could be replaced by something with more common language like "Fortunately her company's payroll website uses the correct structures."



Draft Script for 1.3.2

Apologies if I am misunderstanding. The 2 bullets in the notes section appear to contradict the text in scene 1. Is this about someone with aphasia, someone that has low vision and uses a screen reader, or someone with dyslexia? Or, does she have multiple disabilities? I cannot review the script before understanding the true scenario.



Draft Script for 1.3.3

[i] Scene 1 includes a lot of information. Recommend removing "magnifies the screen and" since magnifying content on the screen would (typically) also increase the text size. If there is a reason to note these separately, then this requires a separate sentence because that may not be apparent to all reviewing the video. From scene 2 it appears that increasing the size of the text is the focus of the topic, but if it is magnification, then this should be switched.



Further review of the audio content has it going through other types of issues. To help viewers connect this to the language of the success criteria, highly recommend using the exact language included in the SC. For example, using when appropriate the words shape, color, size, visual location, orientation, or sound. Scene 2, for example, could have the term visual location.



[i] Scene 4 may be confusing to some - wondering why this is different from 1.4.1.



Draft Script for 1.3.4

[e] Scene 2: I'm unclear why the individual in this script has both a stand and a mount. This communicates to me that someone else has moved his device for him, and attached it to both a stand (when at the table) and a mount on his wheelchair. For those less familiar with AT, it may be easier to have just one mounting method presented. This also will enable a more independent presentation of Jan, even with this type of physical disability. Many individuals have no ability at all to alter the orientation of their device. Demonstrating that some sites work well with a landscape orientation, but others do not, may help the learners better understand the concept.



Draft Script for 1.3.5

[i] I recommend that COGA members have an opportunity to review this script. I am really excited to see this type of issue brought forward, but feel it needs further review. For example, I have concerns about the use of the word "confused" in scene 2 and how this is presented. I recommend using phrasing more similar to what is in Content Usable, 6.7.2 Jonathan Scenario 2. This section of Content Usable focuses more on the time it takes to complete something without typos.



Draft Script for 1.3.6

[e] If the text in the notes section is to be published, I recommend reviewing this text.

[i] It may be difficult for viewers to connect scene 4 with the rest of the information as it is quite different than the content coming before it. I recommend removing scene 4 because it does not describe the purpose listed in the notes section.



Jennie Delisi
Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility
Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
O: 651-201-1135
Information Technology for Minnesota Government | mn.gov/mnit<http://mn.gov/mnit>
[Minnesota IT Services Logo]
[Facebook logo]<https://www.facebook.com/MN.ITServices>[LinkedIn logo]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/minnesota-it-services/>[Twitter logo]<https://twitter.com/mnit_services>