W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Final Business Benefits document suite available - updated 21:30 17-Aug

From: Andrew Arch <amja@optushome.com.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:34:37 +1000
Message-ID: <004901c12710$9903af00$ca2ba4cb@lowrp1.vic.optushome.com.au>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
See below for actions (several of which had already been undertaken last

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Cc: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Final Business Benefits document suite available

> Dear Andrew,
> I just read it through in detail and it is really looking good.
> As I can now print it w/out the Opera crash I was getting previously
> (perhaps it was one of the markup clean-ups?), I've gone through it
> carefully. I've come up with a few more things that I believe need
> attending to before this goes out for review. All are minor things to fix;
> sorry could not get these together earlier.
> Details below...
> At 10:11 PM 8/16/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
> >Dear EOWG
> >
> >The final draft of the Business Benefits (with the linearised tables) is
> >available from the usual place (or go straight to
> >http://members.optushome.com.au/amja/wai/busben.html)
> >
> >Thanks to all those who provided comments and suggestions and editorial
> >assistance.
> >
> >Lets see what the rest of the world thinks!
> >
> >Thanks,  Andrew
> - the layout of the "Business Benefits of Accessible Design" title is
> wrapping strangely. you may still have an align left or align right in
> there, that would no longer be necessary w/out the resource suite nav bar.


> - the "note" at beginning should be updated as we pull it onto the w3c/wai
> site to publish it prior to the review request, e.g. not this draft but
> one to be reviewed on w3c/wai site should say 'is offered for review'
> rather than 'will be offered.' i will coordinate w/ you on that
> - typos: i'll list the ones here that i could find, please search main doc
> for these words: demostrate, retrived, presenation, intructions; linear
> tables version: benefiuts


> - caps: there's something strange going on w/ caps; many of the acronyms
> appear to be missing spaces in front of them, or this may in fact be the
> case, e.g. search for theWCAG or usingSMIL and see if you get anything

Huh? spaces appear before them all. note that I have used the <acronym> tag

> - title of table document: should not have the same title, is confusing,
> some people might think they have the main document if they are sent there


> - initial cap on "Web": is standard usage for W3C however in the doc is
> inconsistent, sometimes "web"


> - "final": this doc will still be considered a draft until it has gone
> _through_ WAI IG review & other review, and so should not be labeled final
> draft (as it currently is at end of main document) nor refered to it that
> way on lists.


> - u.s. vs. rest-of-the-world english: just checked w/ communications team
> at w3c and we do need to bring this in line w/ w3c convention which is for
> u.s. english spellings. affects colour, utilise, realise,
> internationalisation, etc. Andrew I will forward you a note w/ details
> W3C's document editor.

Oh well - we can only try - DONE (and reset to [lang="en-us"])

> - minor point but quote marks are used inconsistently throughout document,
> which becomes distracting; almost all of them should be double quotes
> rather than single quotes '...'


> - WCAG: can't recall if we discussed this in the working group, but the
> references to WCAG should, i believe, all be references to WCAG 1.0,
> especially since we are specifically referencing WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
> W3C's general rule is to reference specs by version number when such
> exists, unless there is good reason not to, and I don't see good reason
> to here.

Yes, I do recall the discussion - DONE

> - general comment but probably not for changing at this point: the
> use of "you" and "your" in addressing the audience throughout the document
> strikes me as awkward in a number of places, and conversely the one or two
> areas where that convention is not used (for instance in the section on
> "assisting access for low-bandwidth users") reads more smoothly to me. i
> think the problem is some cognitive dissonance for me with the notion that
> every person who reads this document is reading it with regard to their
> Web site. the audience could actually include Web developers or image
> consultants, regulatory folks who are curious about the business benefits
> side of things, etc.  In a few places the "you" almost seems like talking
> down to people. However, to remove it would involve extensive re-writing,
> and also probably make it sound dryer. Therefore, I'm just pointing this
> out but am not sure whether we should change that or not. Am interested in
> others' reactions on this question.


> - suggested rewordings:
> DONE * first paragraph: "to assist in the preparation of a business case
> implementation of Web accessibility."
> DONE * second para: "adoption of WCAG checkpoints" (we cannot use the term
> recommendations here, it is reserved for W3C Recommendations so as not to
> create confusion)
> DONE * fourth para: "demographics" instead of "demographic statistics"
> DONE * fifth para: "Since one of the underlying tenets of the WCAG is to
> increase the usability of Web sites..." change to "Since implementation of
> the WCAG has the effect of increasing the usability of Web sites..."
> DONE * i still believe that it is misleading to state that "the proportion
> people with disabilities in the population is up to 20 percent in many
> developed countries -- a significant market that can be accessed through
> conformance with WCAG" since it implies that the provisions in WCAG are
> relevant to this entire demographic. they are not, and i believe that it
> presents a credibility problem for w3c/wai to imply so. suggested
> rewording: "The proportion of people with disabilities can range up to 20%
> in some populations. A significant portion of those people with
> disabilities -- in some countries as much as 8% to 10% of the overall
> population -- can benefit from the accessibility in Web sites conforming
> WCAG 1.0."
> DONE * "cell-phone browsers" suggest changing to "mobile phone browsers"
> is less used in many countries"
> DONE * "also be aware that 8% of the male population" in some countries
this is
> 10%; it varies. Suggestion: "Also be aware that 8% - 10% of the male
> population in many countries..."
> DONE - but check* "From a strategic point of view, anything you can do to
increase the
> likelihood that your site will be found over your competitor's is a
> positive benefit" This seems to imply that all Web sites are run by
> cutthroat competitors, whereas hopefully the business benefits of
> accessibility will appeal to non-profits and socially-minded corporations
> alike. Can't figure out how to reword it. What about dropping it?
> DONE * under "repurpose content" suggest changing "simply let the
differing Web
> devices" to "...diferent Web devices."
> DONE * "The bandwidth savings are astonishing" suggest changing to "The
> bandwidth savings are immense" (rather than presuming the emotional effect
> on audience)
> DONE * "Style sheets vs. HTML tag-spaghetti: we need something that
> internationalizes better than this... how about "Style sheets vs. in-line
> markup"
> DISCUSS * "from WAP phone to PDA's" suggest spelling both of these
acronyms out.
> DONE * "with bandwidth becoming an limitation" "...a limitation"
> DONE * "The population is also ageing" "The population in some countries
is also
> ageing"
> DONE * "This includes equal access to electronic information..." "This may
> include..."
> - questions:
> * the first sub-bullet under "clear content" in low literacy levels -- the
> detail in this paragraph, about the use of short sentences and lists,
> doesn't this seem to go beyond what WCAG 1.0 actually says? if so, we are
> breaking the thesis of this resource page.

Checked the literal wording of WCAG 1.0 and agree - DONE

> - misc:
> * there's an erroneous bulleted line in the "captioning" item under search
> engine performance

Can't find this

> - tables document:
> * there are two "to be completed" sections near the end. we should have
> these completed before it goes out for review...


> So, all those were little details... again, the document is looking very
> good. This document represents  a great amount of work and will become a
> very useful resource.

Thanks Judy for the "fine tooth comb" review.

Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 07:41:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:31 UTC