- From: Barry McMullin <mcmullin@eeng.dcu.ie>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:06:49 +0100 (IST)
- cc: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi All - Apologies for the late response to this (so feel free to ignore on that ground alone!). I have mainly minor suggestions, listed below. Aside from these detailed suggestions, I'm still concerned about the question of enriching the resource with links to external resources; but I accept that that has to be deferred for separate discussion in a wider context. Change suggestions: * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Range of User Involvement", end of first paragraph. * current wording: "... extreme</strong>s" * suggested revision: "... extremes</strong>" * rationale: typo * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Range of User Involvement", last paragraph. * current wording: "However, formal usability testing not required in most cases." * suggested revision: "However, formal usability testing is not required in most cases." * rationale: typo * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Include Diverse Users", first paragraph. * current wording: ""visual disability" includes people who been totally blind since birth" * suggested revision: ""visual disability" includes people who have been totally blind since birth" * rationale: typo * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Include Diverse Users", second paragraph. * current wording: "avoid the pitfall of only including people who are blind." * suggested revision: "avoid the pitfall of, for example, including only people who are blind." * rationale: I agree with the concern expressed by Sailesh Panchang that this point needs careful wording so as not to generate a wrong interpretation (for example, toward deliberately NOT including blind users!). But I also know this text has already been through several iterations, and I don't want to extend it excessively with further long-wided qualifications. So my suggestion above is just one further attempt at slightly greater clarity. * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Include Diverse Users", final paragraph. * current wording: not applicable * suggested revision: Addition of final sentence reading: "Remember that user accessibility testing is never a <strong>substitute</strong> for <a href="conformance">expert evaluation of technical conformance to guidelines;</a> rather, the two are <strong>complementary</strong> aspects of comprehensive evaluation." * rationale: I feel there is still a need to make this point more explicitly just here - despite the fact that a very similar thing (with a similar link) has already been said at the end of the introduction. * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Understanding [Findings/Results/Issues]" * current wording: Section title "Understanding [Findings/Results/Issues]" * suggested revision: "Diagnosing Accessibility Problems" * rationale: We already have two options for the title of this; just throught I'd add another one! But seriously, I think the word "diagnose" might work slightly better? I definitely do not like the subsconscious effect of the phrase "Placing the Blame". * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Understanding [Findings/Results/Issues]", first paragraph, second last sentence. * current wording: "Users are likely to identify accessibility issues in different components; for example, when evaluating a Web site, the user might find an accessibility problem with the AT." * suggested revision: Insert dditional, new sentence after above: Note that an individual user will not necessarily be able to accurately identify or separate the contributions of the separate components. Indeed, any given user may not even be consciously aware of their distinct roles. * rationale: This is an attempt to clarify a confusion I experience in reading the sentence that is currently there. It seems to read as if the user CAN reasonably be expected to identify which distinct component is responsible for a particular difficulty. But I presume that is not something we mean to imply? I would certainly only expect the most sophisticated users to be able to do that with any degree of accuracy. But my suggested revision is still rather clumsy, so maybe there is a shorter, more elegant, way of expressing this. * priority: [editor's discretion] * location: Section "Understanding [Findings/Results/Issues]", list, final list item. * current wording: "Web site - most problems will probably be things that you can fix in the Web site." * suggested revision: Not sure! * rationale: Re-reading this, I found I no longer understood what we were trying to get across with this point. As it stands might be read as saying that, of the various components involved, the web site is most commonly ("most problems") the one at fault. I'm not sure I could agree with that anyway; but if that were the intention, it needs more clear expression. That's my tuppence worth! Best - Barry.
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 17:08:08 UTC