W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility: Financial Factors

From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:00:00 +1100
To: michaeka@wellsfargo.com
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFEC145A5C.C022A5F0-ONCA256DF3.0051E848-CA256DF3.00525FCF@domino.bigpond.com>

Blossom said (and Shawn similarly) under Increased Web Usage: "non-profit
organization can receive more donations" - I think this is misleading. It
suggests that donations are the prime reason for NGOs & non-profits to have
a web presence. In actual fact most of these organisations have web
presences in order to spread their message better. So the emphasis should
be to reach more supporters (rather than donors).

Dr Andrew Arch
Manager Online Accessibility Consulting, National Information & Library
Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210; Mobile 0438 755 565
http://www.nils.org.au/ | http://www.it-test.com.au/ |

Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

NILS - A Joint Venture between the
Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, The Royal Blind Society of NSW,
and Vision Australia Foundation.

                      go.com                   To:       w3c-wai-eo@w3.org                                                 
                      Sent by:                 cc:                                                                         
                      w3c-wai-eo-reques        Subject:  Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility: Financial Factors      
                      05/12/2003 11:42                                                                                     

Hello, all -

I find the current version of Financial Factors hard to access. So, here's
my two cents. Rewrites include:

1.  Removing redundant content and multiple ideas in one paragraph.
2.  Attempting to group like ideas together.
3.  Improving flow.
4.  Changing bolding to focus on headers.
5.  Removing confusing structure. The document is hard to scan, and the
structure is not truly hierarchal:
          - Inconsistent use of bullets and definition lists.
          - The bullets and definition list indentations are different,
creating visual hierarchy confusion.
          - Misuse of definition list for formatting and not structure. (In
particular, JAWS tells users they've reached a definition list and the
number of items in the list, which is confusing as the information is not
words or concepts with their respective definitions.)

I may have unintentionally omitted content.

Attached is a zip file with the revised HTML version. I've also included my
Word working copy, which tracks all changes.
If we can't make this document clear and easy to read, people won't read


Blossom Michaeloff
Web Research and Design
Wells Fargo
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 10:07:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:34 UTC