W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: EGov IG Draft comments

From: <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:02:34 +0200
To: <shawn@w3.org>, <srush@knowbility.org>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D1E1C1C072023846AC4A55088BAA4B03309C586427@NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com>

 Hello Shawn,

I understand that EOWG was supposed to review eGov doc from accessibility perspective and therefore other comments are to be submitted directly to the eGov IG. (And that's what I did.) Nevertheless, it is the end result that matters not just the fact of submitting comments. In my opinion the document should be rewritten in parts or completely. And therefore sending out a big bulk of comments may signify the message that the document indeed has a problem.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Shawn Henry
Sent: 17 April, 2009 04:46
To: Sharron Rush; w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Subject: Re: EGov IG Draft comments

Thanks, Sharron! My main issue is that I don't want EOWG to suggest changes other than accessibility related changes. This change seems to go beyond accessibility, and thus I think it's best left for comment outside of EOWG.

To make that more clear, I've added to our comments: "Note that as feasible we re-used your language in our suggested alternative, even in places where additional editing is warranted."

And right after that we have: "Some EOWG members have additional concerns that are not within the scope of these comments focusing on accessibility. We asked individuals to submit those comments separately."


In the Introduction, I edited this sentence: However, we also identified phrasing that could lead to serious misinterpretations; for example, some in EOWG understood "Provide input on how to ease standards compliance" to mean that the standards themselves should be made less stringent but others understood it differently.


Sharron Rush wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you have a few minutes to look over the current draft of our 
> comment to the Egov IG, please send your thoughts in prep for 
> tomorrow's meeting.  The IG is on a tight deadline and I would like to 
> get our comment to them soon.
> Thanks Shawn for your input, it was helpful  About this item, you 
> suggest the possibility to delete a phrase from section 1.2.2.  The 
> question is whether to delete "Equivalent avenues for participation by 
> citizens without Internet access must be maintained into the 
> indefinite future."
> We are asking them to separate out the needs of people with 
> disabilities for specific attention.  But we do not want in any way to 
> deny that there are other barriers to online participation that do not 
> have to do with disability.  This was my attempt to recognize the 
> importance of other issues as well but perhaps there is another way to do that.
> I would appreciate the group's input.
> Their draft is here: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-egov-improving-20090310/
> and our comments are here: 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/comments/eGov-2009-04.html
> Thank you!
> Sharron
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------
> Sharron Rush |  Executive Director  |  www.Knowbility.org 
> <http://www.knowbility.org/> |  512 305-0310 /Equal access to 
> technology for people with disabilities/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 06:03:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:43 UTC