Re: final review for content usable 1.0

Hi Lisa et. al.,

I've added several more editing pull requests to the consistency_checks
branch.

Additionally, here are a couple of additional things that I found:

*Under 6.6.4 Kwame Scenario 4
<https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html#kwame-scenario-4-understanding-where-information-is-in-a-hierarchical-structure>,
I was unclear what "cons" is in this sentence: *
"He needs *cons* that emphasize the structure and role of the content.
Images that accompany the main text and make it memorable also help."

*Under 6.8.3 Sam Scenario 6
<https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html#sam-scenario-3-trying-to-activate-elements-that-are-mis-recognized>,
I was unclear what "crosses" is in this sentence:*
"Small *crosses* become a nightmare."

Thank you,

Rain

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:10 AM Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com> wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
> Adding a link to developer resources and then enabling the inclusion of
> resources in more than one language sounds like the perfect plan.
>
> Thank you for your response!
>
> Rain
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:41 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rain
>> I can put in the changes on sunday.
>>
>> We tried to make the bullet points consistent, but we can do a final
>> check.
>>
>> we had a few links to  the 1500 most common words for different contexts.
>> , however I would rather add a link to our developer resource page, and add
>> it there. Is that ok? Then we can add for different languages as we find
>> them.
>>
>> All the best
>> Lisa
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021, 19:33 Rain Michaels, <rainb@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, I'm adding a few more corrections in pull requests. Meanwhile,
>>> here are a couple more overall comments that stand out for us to
>>> potentially address in the future:
>>>
>>> User Story: Adapt is not the only place where both "easy to understand
>>> language" (without hyphens) and "easy-to-understand language" (with
>>> hyphens) are used. These two ways of writing this appear to be used
>>> interchangeably throughout the document. Is this intentional?
>>>
>>> Design Guide is not the only section where both terms, "cognitive and
>>> learning disabilities" and "cognitive and learning impairments" are used.
>>> These two terms appear to be used interchangeably throughout the document.
>>> Is this intentional?
>>>
>>> I've seen this comment before in a thread, but wanted to note that it
>>> stood out in the document: list item punctuation is inconsistent
>>> throughout. In some places, each list item ends with a period even if it is
>>> not a complete sentence. Some areas end each item with a common, until the
>>> second to last one which ends with "and". Other places have no punctuation
>>> even if each list item contains a full or nearly full sentence.
>>>
>>> Under 4.4.1.2 What To Do:
>>> There is a recommendation to "look at the 1500 most common words," but
>>> this feels unhelpful without a link or resource included (I found this, but
>>> it is English-specific: https://www.englishspeak.com/en/english-words)
>>>
>>> I'm more than happy to do the work of finding and correcting these items
>>> in the code, but would need to know from the group if (1) these are
>>> intentional, and (2) which style we would like to use.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Rain
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:43 PM Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am so impressed with all of the work that has been done.
>>>>
>>>> In the spirit of editing:
>>>>
>>>> I've created several pull requests on the consistency_checks branch
>>>> with minor corrections that seemed obvious and objective.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not done going through, but wanted to make sure to send what I have
>>>> as soon as possible. I'll try to get through the rest of the
>>>> document tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Here are a couple of comments for items that are more subjective:
>>>>
>>>> *3.1.2 User Story: Clear Operation*
>>>>
>>>> As an individual with dyslexia, the opening paragraph confused me: *"As
>>>> a user with a memory impairment, a learning disability, or a communication
>>>> disability who uses symbols, or executive function impairment, I find it
>>>> hard to learn new interface design patterns. I need to know which controls
>>>> are available and how to use them so that the site is usable for me."*
>>>>
>>>> I was able to follow the first three user examples, but the forth one
>>>> ("or executive function impairment") felt like it was tacked on and didn't
>>>> fit into the list. I spent more time than I should have re-thinking the
>>>> sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Suggestions to fix:
>>>>
>>>> Suggestion 1:  put them in a list
>>>>
>>>> *As a user with*
>>>>
>>>>    - *a memory impairment*
>>>>    - *a learning disability*
>>>>    - *a communication disability who uses symbols*
>>>>    - *an executive function impairment*
>>>>
>>>> Suggestion 2: tweak the "or" and "a" usage in the sentence
>>>>
>>>> *As a user with a memory impairment, a learning disability, a
>>>> communication disability who uses symbols, or an executive function
>>>> impairment,...*
>>>>
>>>> *3.8.1 User Story: Adapt*
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that sometimes the document uses "easy to understand" as
>>>> three separate words, and sometimes we use "easy-to-understand" with
>>>> hyphens.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reason for the two styles?
>>>>
>>>> The third bullet in this section uses both:
>>>>
>>>> *"I need content delivered in an easy to understand language or an
>>>> easy-to-understand mode (like short, understandable, video clips)."*
>>>>
>>>> *4. Design Guide*
>>>>
>>>> In the intro paragraph, I noticed that we used the word "cognitive and
>>>> learning impairments" instead of "cognitive and learning disabilities,"
>>>> which is different from the language elsewhere. Not sure if there is a
>>>> specific reason for this, but it stands out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:19 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Folks
>>>>>
>>>>> We (editors) are doing the final changes from the issues to content
>>>>> useable 1.0. However, it will still need to be reviewed, as sometimes when
>>>>> you fix one thing you brake another (and we have a dyslexic editor...).
>>>>>
>>>>> We will hopefully get any changes done over the weekend and send you a
>>>>> final version to approve then. However if you have time now, and want to
>>>>> start, it would make sense as the changes for the editors are only:  icons,
>>>>> w3c conformance and name consistency (were we changed the pattern name to
>>>>> update the tables and user need)
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you do want to start the review, just ignore these items.
>>>>>
>>>>> The edited draft is at
>>>>> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> You can send any feedback to the list. Feel free to read it as HTML or
>>>>> as a word doc or whatever makes reviewing easier for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks so much
>>>>> Lisall h
>>>>>
>>>>