Re: RAUR review

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the considered review - I look forward to parsing *smile.

Josh

> Scott Hollier <mailto:scott@hollier.info>
> Tuesday 9 February 2021 09:41
>
> To the RQTF
>
> I’ve finished reviewing the RQTF which is looking fantastic.
>
> In terms of the technical aspects, it all looks great to me – no 
> changes or comments. I appreciate we’ve workshoped this for quite some 
> time so it all looks great ot me.
>
> In terms  the use cases read great. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been 
> doing a bit of work on Easy English recently, rereading the 
> introducitons through those eyes I think there’s a few things we could 
> do to make the document have a better entry point for people wanting 
> to know what the RAUR is and what it represents.
>
> SO here’s a few suggested things that could be reworked a little.
>
> Abstract: great, no issue.
>
> Introduction:
>
>   * I’d like to see the ‘what is RTC? Reworked. Here’s how it stands: 
>
> What is Real-time communication (RTC)?
>
> The traditional data exchange model is client to server. Real-time 
> communication (RTC) is game-changing as it is enabled in part by 
> specifications like WebRTC that provides real-time peer to peer audio, 
> video and data exchange directly between supported user agents. This 
> enables instantaneous applications for video and audio calls, text 
> chat, file exchange, screen sharing and gaming, all without the need 
> for browser plugins. However, WebRTC is not the sole specification 
> with responsibility to enable accessible real-time communications, as 
> use cases and requirements are broad - as outlined in the IETF RFC 
> 7478 'Web Real-Time Communication Use Cases and Requirements' 
> document. [ietf-rtc]
>
> ----
>
>   * If the reader wants to know what RTC is, it currently requires a
>     bit of digging through the text. I’d like to see the first
>     sentence as ‘RTC is…’  then a clear a definition in response to
>     the heading ‘What is RTC?’ and then go onto explain the relevance
>     of WebRTC, game-changer, etc.
>   * RTC accessibility: great. This is a good example of how the
>     definition is more clear
>   * User needs definition: similar to first comment. Currently reads as: 
>
> ---.
>
> 2 User needs definition
>
> This document outlines various accessibility related user needs for 
> Accessible RTC. These user needs should drive accessibility 
> requirements for Accessible RTC and its related architecture.
>
> User needs are presented here with their related requirements; some in 
> a range of scenarios (which can be thought of as similar to user 
> stories). User needs and requirements are being actively reviewing by 
> RQTF/APA.
>
>   * Again given the section is called ‘user needs’ definition’, it’d
>     be good to start with ‘A user need is…’ and explain it, then go
>     onto the rest of the text. At the moment it talks about user needs
>     but in my opinion doesn’t define it. 
>
> That’s rpetty much all I could find at the moment. : not much but 
> hopefully helpful.  Fantastic work everyone.
>
> Scott.
>
> Scott Hollier logo*Dr Scott Hollier *
>
> Digital Access Specialist
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909
>
> Web: www.hollier.info <http://www.hollier.info/>
>
> Technology for everyone
>
> Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/scotthollier>.
>


-- 
Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)