Re: EOWG: Reading and Questions this week before 15 September 2006 Teleconference

Hello Shawn and all,
After I have read both drafts A and B, here are my comments to your questions below : 


>* Version A Rough Draft:
>	http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all-extended.htm#(6)
>* Version B Rough Draft:
>	http://www.w3.org/Talks/wai-components/all.htm
>1. Does the alt example help understand the concepts?  Or does it add
>unnecessary complication?

SD: the example of a logo may create misundersttanding among readers as the alt text for a logo depends on the function of this logo on the page. In order to make this example clearer, one should explain that logos may have different text equivalents according to its purpose. 
For example : if the logo of a company is used to show the user that this company is sponsoring the Web site, you cannot only write alt="logo of company X". You should write something like : "logo of company X sponsoring our Web site". 
On the contrary, if this same logo is the way to go back to the site's home page, you should not only write alt="logo of company X" but write that this logo is the way to go back to the home page.
I'm afraid that when you tell the reader that the alt for the logo is alt="alt="Web Accessibility Initiative logo"... /> people will believe that they always have to add such text equivalent to a logo. 

>2. Should the detailed descriptions be grouped on the 2 slides (with
>builds) as in Version A, or separated on 6 slides, as in Version B?

SD: this question is not clear to me and more explanations during the call would be appreciated. 


>3. How should the poor & good accessibility support be covered?

SD: no ideas yet. 

>4. I suggest not calling these "slides" since they are intended for
>self-study and not presentation. How about calling them a:
>a. Step-Through Overview
>b. Walkthrough
>c. ? other ideas... 

SD: Walk-through. No other ideas for the moment. 

>5. How does "Ingredients" work (instead of Components)?
SD: Like Natasha I prefer Components. 

>6. The 4th slide and related slides have "Making Web Content". Is
>"Creating Web Content" better than "Making"? Note the parallel is "Getting
>Web Content" and we want this to use very simple, easy to understand
>language.

SD: I prefer "Creating Web Content" too. 

>7. What about "usually" in: "Web content developers usually use authoring
>tools and evaluation tools to create Web content."? The sentence is
>simpler without it; however it's not true that all "Web content developers
>use... evaluation tools..." OK to leave "usually" out anyway?
SD: It's OK for me to leaveit. What about adding "many Web content developers use..."? that would mean that the tools are used, but that we know they are not used by all. 

>8. In Assistive Technologies Getting Web Content, is it useful to also
>include the "official" definition?
SD: maybe the link to assistive technologies is enough. 

>9. In Evaluation Tools in Making Web Content, should we add a note with
>links to Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html> and Web Accessibility
>Evaluation Tools List Search <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools>? While it
>would be useful, we don't want to clutter this with too many links to
>other documents.

SD: I think it would be too confusing to add too many links. The document should remain as simple as possible. 

>10. In The Powerful Impact of High Quality Ingredients, shall we include
>"Once user agents and assistive technologies support it, users will learn
>how to use the feature", or not include it in order to simplify the slide
>since that's not a key point we want to make.

SD: This last point is also important to my opinion. I think it is the best way to convince web developpers to implement one accessibility feature that is not yet implemented by user agents and assistive technologies, if you tell them that once user agents and assistive technologies can implement this accessibility feature, users will be able to learn how to use it. 

>11. In For More Information, the last bullet, should we list any
>resources? If so, which ones? Perhaps How WAI Develops Accessibility
>Guidelines through the W3C Process: Milestones and Opportunities to
>Contribute? Should we list a range to show breadth? Or list none to keep
>it simple?

SD: keep it simple. If people go to the introductiry materials, then they will find all the other links. 
I hope this helps
Best
Sylvie

Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 10:31:38 UTC