FW: Before and After Demo (BAD)

 Dear all,

As Shadi suggested I am moving the discussion back to the reflector. I
have two things to comment back at this point. If the point of the
exercise is to show that accessible and inaccessible pages can be
equally juicy this has to be articulated more clearly somewhere in the
material. I am perfectly fine with that and if I get this idea from the
very start I treat the presentation material accordingly, but if I don't
get this idea my perception of the material changes.

I can contribute to the points I made in this discussion but I can not
do it before end of November and I don't know if this is too late or
not.

Anna

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
>Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:20 PM
>To: Zhuang Anna (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere)
>Subject: Re: Before and After Demo (BAD)
>
>Hi Anna,
>
>Thank you for your comments. Please send these types of 
>comments to the mailing list for others to see, and so that we 
>can consider them more easily during our discussions. Please 
>find some responses below:
>
>
>Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com wrote:
>> Let me explain my problem. I think the whole idea is very 
>good but if 
>> I want to build my presentation around currently available 
>material I 
>> get into several troubles. I check "broken" page and then 
>check "fixed" one.
>> There are no visual differences between those so I have to explore 
>> supporting material to learn what is going on. "Before" is well 
>> presented because it contains clear problem statement as well as 
>> reference to WCAG and sometimes problem on the code level. "After"
>> usually gives recommendations only. So for me I have to examine the 
>> source code of fixed pages to see what exactly has been 
>done. You say 
>> there are different ways to fix one problem and that should be in 
>> recommendation list. Then it is good to have a code snippet to show 
>> how exactly problem was fixed in this example. The whole thing is an 
>> example and we show example of bad coding prcatice and 
>example of good 
>> coding practice. We do have a disclaimer that this is only 
>an example.
>
>It seems that there are two issues here:
>
>1- The presentation of the Demo seems to be confusing. Also 
>Michael Stenitzer commented on possible improvements for the 
>presentation [1]. 
>Would these changes help? Please respond to his message on the list:
>[1] 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-age/2008OctDec/0005>
>
>2- The source code and changes to the code between the before 
>and after are not well exposed. This is the current scope of 
>the Demo but we could consider expanding it if there is 
>sufficient interest and contribution for the changes within 
>the group. We will also discuss this aspect.
>
>Is that a correct interpretation of your comment?
>
>
>> Then, was it intentional to show only problems that do not impact 
>> visual appearance of the pages? Why can't you introduce 
>problems that 
>> would make a visual difference between broken and fixed pages?
>
>Yes, we wanted to keep the "before" and "after" visually very 
>similar to counter the myth that "accessible Web sites have to 
>be dull and boring". 
>Often the changes may not need to impact the visual appearance 
>was one of our basic messages for the Demo.
>
>
>> On the general note, I still have problem with what W3C calls a 
>> document. For me a document is something that I can print 
>out with one 
>> click and read at my leasure in paper form. In W3C a 
>document is often 
>> a web page with tons of links. Sometimes those links jump to another 
>> part of the same page, somethmes jump to a different page. 
>If this is 
>> W3C preferred way of delivering "documents" then those need to be 
>> structured well enough to be perceived as a single entity.
>
>I think the definition of "document" versus "Web page" is out 
>of scope for this discussion. Is the problem that different 
>parts of the Demo are visually presented differently?
>
>
>> If I examine BAD pages, the front page is very dry.
>
>Any recommendations for improving it?
>
>
>> Then I click on "barriers" link and get the page that does 
>not look to 
>> be centered around barriers but look to be somehow competing 
>with the 
>> main page.
>
>The "overview page" introduces the Demo and explains how it 
>could be used. The "barriers page" highlights the types of 
>barriers that are shown on each of the pages, and links the 
>"before", "after", and the "evaluation report" pages. Why are 
>these competing?
>
>
>> From your response report is not a sample report but rather a 
>> comprehensive piece of work comprised of mashine generated 
>report with 
>> human edits plus added references to WCAG and this is not explained 
>> anywhere.
>
>Good point. Maybe we need to explain reporting and the sample 
>report somewhere. We should consider this.
>
>
>> To sum up, why can't we have an intro page that is a bit 
>more exhaustive 
>> and barriers page concentrating on these barriers only with cross 
>> reference to the sample web pages. And when the barriers are 
>introduced 
>> explain what reader would get by clicking the link to 
>respective part in 
>> the report.
>
>We did not want to make the overview page too long so that it does not 
>become cumbersome. We could however add additional pages. It 
>seems that 
>you are proposing a "guide"-like approach that is very explanatory. We 
>will need to find someone who can contribute the time to write this.
>
>
>> Why can't we have e.g.
>> 
>> * Barrier name
>>    * link to WCAG1.0 check point
>>    * potentially link to WCAG2.0
>>    * link to the problem
>>    * link to recommendations
>>    * link to solution example
>
>Note that the Demo can be used in many different ways so we can not be 
>too prescriptive. However, the overall idea is worth discussion.
>
>
>> IMHO the way this demo is currently organized is difficult 
>to digest by
>> nontechnical users and difficult to reuse by technical users.
>
>Please send your thoughts on the organization if you have any 
>additional 
>to the ones above.
>
>Thank you,
>   Shadi
>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:21 PM
>>> To: Zhuang Anna (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere)
>>> Subject: Re: Before and After Demo (BAD)
>>>
>>> Dear Anna,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late response but I've been in meetings all week 
>>> last week and am just catching up. Please find some comments 
>>> inline below:
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com wrote:
>>>> The presentation material is labelled "Before and After". "Before" 
>>>> part is exposed pretty well but not the "after" part.
>>> Could you elaborate on how we could better expose the "after" part?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Evaluation report lists all the problems found. But there is 
>>> no list of
>>>> how EXACTLY pages were fixed. Yes, there are recommendations 
>>> on how to
>>>> fix all identified issues but if I give a presentation I 
>>> would like to
>>>> show the exact problem and its exact fix. Or are you 
>>> expecting presenter
>>>> to show a source code for both page with problems and fixed page?
>>> Often there isn't one single way to address accessibility 
>barriers, so 
>>> we did not want to give this impression by giving only one specific 
>>> example. The idea is to show some of the common types of 
>>> barriers, some 
>>> of the different ways to repair (and report) them, and how 
>the final 
>>> result could look like. It is up to the presenters and the 
>audience as 
>>> to what level of detail they want to show. This demo could 
>>> even be used 
>>> for completely non-technical presentations.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also have not found the name of the evaluation tool used 
>>> to produce 
>>>> this report.
>>> Firstly, an evaluation tool could not produce such a 
>report. This type 
>>> of report is produced by developers, service providers or 
>consultants.
>>>
>>> Secondly, it is not actually relevant which evaluation 
>tools were used 
>>> as we do not want to promote the tools but rather the end result.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Shadi
>>>
>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: public-wai-age-request@w3.org 
>>>>> [mailto:public-wai-age-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Shadi 
>>>>> Abou-Zahra
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 5:07 PM
>>>>> To: public-wai-age@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: Before and After Demo (BAD)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear group,
>>>>>
>>>>> As mentioned in Andrew's previous mail, we will be discussing 
>>>>> the Before and After Demo (BAD) during this weeks 
>>>>> teleconference. "BAD" is a sample
>>>>> (miniature) Web site in an inaccessible and accessible version:
>>>>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was specifically designed to be reusable during 
>>>>> presentations or training sessions. Of course it should also 
>>>>> serve as best practice for developers and to help destroy the 
>>>>> myth that accessible Web sites have to be dull and boring.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have previously discussed this demo as a valuable resource 
>>>>> to show the common accessibility needs of older people. It 
>>>>> should demonstrate that by conforming to the accessibility 
>>>>> guidelines, the accessibility needs of older users are equally 
>>>>> met. It could also be used for trainers and educators offering 
>>>>> courses to older users, or to developers who want to construct 
>>>>> Web sites for this target audience:
>>>>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/deliverables.html#bad>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please have a look at the "Accessibility Barriers" page which 
>>>>> shows the types of accessibility issues that were built into 
>>>>> this initial demo. It is a collection of different kinds of 
>>>>> barriers that were put together in different individual Web pages:
>>>>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/features>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please also look at the changelog document which captures some 
>>>>> of the requirements including the purpose and the target 
>>>>> audience (and which links to more in-depth background on the 
>>>>> requirements):
>>>>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/changelog>
>>>>>
>>>>> During this week's teleconference call I would like to discuss 
>>>>> the types of accessibility barriers that are shown in the demo 
>>>>> to see if there are other ones that we should be covering too. 
>>>>> Please consider the WAI-AGE comparative analysis for this 
>>>>> purpose, noting that the demo will be updated to WCAG 2.0 
>>>>> during this exercise:
>>>>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to send any questions, comments, or suggestions to 
>>>>> this list ahead of time so that we can discuss them 
>during the call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>   Shadi
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>>>>>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>>>>>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>>>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>>>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
>>>
>> 
>
>-- 
>Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
>

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 09:31:44 UTC