W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2004

Comments on Components of Web Accessibility

From: Charmane K. Corcoran <corcora1@msu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:57:02 -0400
Message-Id: <a05210602bd415409ae65@[35.12.19.133]>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Review of http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/components

1. The User Experience
  "knowledge of hoe to use computers" - should be "knowledge of *how* 
to use computers"

2. Inter-dependencies - For example, for alternative text on images:
	Developers provide the equivalent alt text  - change to ALT

3. When one component is weak "not good for accessibility in the big picture."
	This seems like it might not translate well and is jargon 
that may not be familiar to all readers

Suggest
	"not good for accessibility in the full picture."

Comment
	I don't like my suggestion - I think someone not from U.S. 
may do better at suggesting an alternative for expression and 
translation.

4. Currently the burden of developing accessible content is heavy on 
developers and thus requires a high level of developer knowledge, 
skill, and effort.

a) All should take responsibility to implement. I am concerned about 
putting the emphasis in one corner of the equation for two reasons. 
This is a matter of tone and hidden implication of guilt in a way.

Suggest adding something/a sentence that indicates that the burden is 
not  on any one group but on all. i.e.

"Though the ability/responsibility to make content more accessible 
rests with every phase of the process, currently the burden of 
developing accessible content is heavy on developers. This demands a 
high level of developer knowledge, skill, and effort."

This is also related to comment in #9-b below.

b) One question: What does "a high level of developer knowledge, 
skill, and effort" add to this? What are we trying to communicate 
her?. Is it that less trained people cannot do accessibility coding, 
make accessible web pages? Is this what we want to convey? I think 
that there is a point here but it is not quite clear enough for me to 
say for sure what it is.

Suggest
Delete this part? Maybe we could say it a different way so that the 
purpose is clearer?

5. Better authoring toolscould - needs a space between "tools" and "could"

6. Header "Getting implementation in the cycle" 

Suggest
"Inserting implementation into the cycle"

Comment
Inserting expresses the action we want people to do, insert or put 
into. "getting" is a bit more ambiguous, less pointed toward the 
action we would like people to take.

7. Under Getting implementation in the cycle
"user agents are less likely to implement accessibility features that 
most sites don't use, because there is little demand for it"

Suggest
Assuming there is little demand for it, user agents are less likely 
to implement accessibility features that many sites are neglecting to 
use.

Explanation
The "assuming" phrase was too far away from the "assumer's" - user agents
many versus most - this may be correct but the question is 1) is it 
provable, 2) won't this change over time?  If it will change over 
time (hopefully for the better), then the durability of the document 
will be longer if we use "many" rather than "most". Avoid 
contractions.

Introducing the concept of "neglect" conveys that this is a mistake 
and not a good thing or a norm.

8. authoring tools are less likely to implement accessibility 
features that developers aren't demanding

Suggest: Avoid contractions
authoring tools are less likely to implement accessibility features 
that developers are not demanding

9. If common user agents better supported a given accessibility 
feature, developers would be more inclined to want to implement it 
and demand that their authoring tool make it easy to implement.

   a) delete "common"  - the common user agents should but so should 
others.  Using "common" could let the other users agents off the hook

   b) bolding "user agents better supported a given accessibility 
feature" looks like we are putting the responsibility on the user 
agents.  It seems we should be stating that each entity in the entire 
system should take responsibility to do what they can toward 
accessibility. i.e. If more sites used the features, more user agents 
would put in the features that use them. Authoring tools would 
likewise increase because of the demand.

The point is that we need to convey that no one entity should be 
responsible to be first to implement. All should take responsibility 
to implement, to be first, regardless of whether the others are doing 
their part or not. If all take that approach, independent yet 
collaborative approach, then there will be success and that success 
will come much quicker.

Charmane
-- 


MSU: Advancing Knowledge. Transforming Lives.

Libraries, Computing & Technology: Connecting People and Information

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a Productive Day!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charmane K. Corcoran
Information & Accessibility Specialist
Michigan State University
Client Advocacy Office
316A Computer Center
East Lansing MI 48824

E-mail:	corcora1@msu.edu
Phone:	Dept. Office - 517/353-4856
	Direct/Vmail - 517/355-4500 Ext. 244
FAX:	Office: 517/355-0141

HmPg:	http://www.msu.edu/~corcora1/
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2004 20:57:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:52 UTC