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.

Anna 

-----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.

~Shawn


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 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:58 UTC