[Draft] Promoting and Advocating for Web Accessibility

Dear EOWG:

Please review the following draft document, which we will discuss at our 
face-to-face meeting on Monday morning, using the questions below. I will 
have copies available, including large print, and a copy on a key. As Shawn 
will not be able to join us for Monday morning due to travel complications, 
we have flipped around the agenda so that she can be there on Tuesday when 
we start discussing documents that she had been working on. I'm sorry for 
any inconvenience that this may have caused in your preparations for the 
meeting, but I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the document.

This is an initial, very rough draft of a document on promoting and 
advocating for Web accessibility, which the User Materials Task Force 
(UMTF) had started conceptualizing in third quarter 2006, and for which the 
UMTF had developed a requirements document. My apologies for not sending 
this first to the UMTF, but timing issues didn't allow for that. I am still 
hoping that we can reconvene the UMTF so that we can work further on this 
and other user materials.

Please disregard editorial things such as the left navigation, which isn't 
properly worked out yet.

(For background) User Materials Task Force:

(For brief discussion) Draft requirements document, and change log.
         http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-promote.html (if this does 
not yet included all personas described in UMTF meetings or or UMTF list, 
these will be discussed/added later)

(For in-depth discussion) Draft document: PROMOTING AND ADVOCATING FOR WEB 

A "baker's dozen" of questions for discussion follows. We will need a 
careful change-logger for this discussion.:

1. General comments on the requirements document?

2. General comments on the approach in "Promoting and Advocating for Web 
Accessibility"? (PAWA)

3. Does the organization of the contents in PAWA work, or can you suggest a 
better organization? Can some of the sections in this draft be merged?

4. Does the focus of PAWA seem appropriate?

5. Are the perspective, tone, voice, and language level in the document 
effective, or do these need to be shifted? Could it reach more audiences if 
the voice were shifted a bit?

6. Is key information missing anywhere in the document? It doesn't 
currently included examples of letters; is this OK or would those be an 
important addition?

7. Does any of the information seem inessential for this kind of document?

8. Is the information clearly presented?

9. Should additional documents be linked as resources?

10. Are the strategies here well-explained, and would they be effective?

11. Do you have ideas for graphics that would work well with this document?

12. Other comments?

13. Any reflections back onto the requirements document, after we discuss 
this draft?

See you shortly!


- Judy

Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 03:01:00 UTC