- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:51:50 +0200
- To: Yod Samuel Martín <samuelm@dit.upm.es>, 'ERT WG' <public-wai-ert@w3.org>, Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Thanks Samuel, fixed! Regards, Shadi On 16.7.2014 15:02, Yod Samuel Martín wrote: > Dear WG, > > Below you may find my comments for today's version: > > - Is it immediately clear to new readers what this document is about? > Yes. > > - Is it clear what the current status is and what feedback is needed? > Wording is clear, but I would suggest highlighting the relevant paragraphs > in a separate box (an <aside>?), that is, third paragraph in status section > plus following list items). Yet I am not sure if this fits usual styling > conventions. > > - Can readers skim the document and get an overview on its contents? > Yes. > > - Are there particularly confusing word or sentences that you notice? > Section: Abstract > Suggestion: revert "functionality" to "features", or include both. > Rationale: from my understanding, functionality is a function that is > provided by the tool, but feature is a broader concept. E.g. aggregating > results (2.3.5) describes some functionality, but localization is not > (mainly) a functionality but a presentation (non-functional) aspect, yet it > is a feature nonetheless. This is why section 2 title reads "features" and > this is a prevalent term throughout the document. > I have not found any others at first sight, but I am too conditioned by the > overall process to be able to provide an objective answer :-) > > Editorial comments: > > Section: 1 Introduction > Suggestion: replace "fragements" with "fragments" > Rationale: typo > > Section: 1.1 Evaluation Tools > Suggestion: change "Similarly" to "Besides" > Rationale: I cannot get the similarity between the examples connected, so > another adverb would fit better than "similarly". > > Regards, > > Samuel. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] > Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de julio de 2014 11:00 > Para: ERT WG > Asunto: offline review instead of meeting > > Dear ERT WG, > > Instead of the meeting today, please use the time to read the updated WAET > document in detail: > - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT > > The most important things to look out for at the moment are: > - Is it immediately clear to new readers what this document is about? > - Is it clear what the current status is and what feedback is needed? > - Can readers skim the document and get an overview on its contents? > - Are there particularly confusing word or sentences that you notice? > > Many thanks for your help reviewing this document! > > Regards, > Shadi > > -- > Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI > International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT > WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) > > > > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 19:52:21 UTC