Re: Accessibility page for beta.w3.org - questions for EOWG

Thanks for comments, Andrew! Replies below.

...
>> Good. It's still an early draft and needs lots of work. More opinions, 
>> comments, and questions encouraged from all.
>>
>>> # "Accessibility is about not disabling people" - interesting word 
>>> play though a little unexpected. In formal settings I often hear the 
>>> term "excluding" rather than "disabling". Will this term work in a 
>>> general setting? Will people understand the idea behind it?
>>
>> I was going for unexpected in this draft, for discussion. <grin> These 
>> are good questions.
>>
>> EOWG folks, what do you think? The full sentence is: "Accessibility is 
>> about not disabling people from using your website because they can't 
>> hear, move, see, or understand well."
> 
> I personally had trouble parsing "Accessibility is about not disabling 
> people ..." compared with "excluding". I see what you're trying to do, 
> but had to re-read to get the sense. I think the problem is with "not" 
> followed by "disabled".
> 
> How about "The Web can disable people from accessing online information 
> and services, accessibility is about enabling access regardless of 
> whether they can hear, move, see, or understand well."

I'm not keen on "The Web can disable people". Our main point is that when designed well the Web is *incredibly enabling*. If we decide to go with the idea that websites can "cause" disability, I think we need to clearly make it the developer or the website that's doing it, and not "the Web".

In any case I look forward to discussing this sentence, and have highlighted it in the agenda.

>>> # Examples - the alt-text example is quite lengthy and explains some 
>>> of the auxiliary benefits but the others don't. Is that a bug or 
>>> feature?
>>
>> The transcript one does: "as well as to search engines and other 
>> technologies that can't hear.".
>>
>>> I'd personally prefer few sentences *with links to related documents* 
>>> about these carry-over benefits (such as to mobile resources etc).
>>
>> I agree in principle. However, we don't have a short explanation of 
>> the other benefits of alt text or other short bits to link to. All we 
>> have is the mobile overlap document, but that's focused differently 
>> and only on one point.
>>
>> Are you proposing that we create a new document(s)? (We do have on the 
>> future deliverables list the possibility of a slideset for the 
>> business case. Perhaps one of the slides would have this info... but 
>> it won't be available for some time.)
>>
>> Shadi & EOWG: Ideas on how to address this in the short-term?
> 
> Maybe mention that search engines and many mobile devices don't use a 
> mouse either? Then all examples have some additional benefits.

hummm - Does it matter for search engines? What percentage of mobile devices don't have a pointer option?

> I think part of the issue is the increased visibility of the auxiliary 
> benefits for alt-text due to the H4.
> 
> Maybe try pulling them all together at the end of examples with an H3 
> "Benefits and Best Practices" as an alternative approach? or just drop 
> the H4?

For comparison and discussion, this version didn't have an <h4>:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090818a

There are advantages to having the other benefits weaved into the examples up front, instead of elsewhere later.

I played with moving it out in: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090820b
Would need to redo the flow...

>>> # Keyboard Image - how about an image of a public information kiosk? 
>>> I know that accessibility is not about getting a kiosk to work but 
>>> the device independence aspect could be clarified that way (and 
>>> further underline the carry-over benefits of accessibility).
>>
>> hum - Nice example of ubiquitous web; however, I think many would miss 
>> it, not knowing the web is used on kiosks. EOWG folks: What is your 
>> perspective on this point?
> 
> Plenty around Bristol for email use and access to local information, but 
> I tend to agree that people may not associate them with the Web (partly 
> because they don't look like computers).

I think much more common in Europe. I don't think I've ever used the Web on a kiosk... hum, can't even think of when I've used a kiosk except at ATM.

> A couple of other suggestions/comments:
> 
> # Section "Make your Website Accessible"
> - change "are even easier" to "are much easier" in the first sentence to 
> increase the emphasis?

I think doesn't flow as well: "Providing transcripts for podcasts and audio files is easy and relatively inexpensive.... and it's done.
Make Your Website Accessible
Most of the basics of accessibility are much easier and less expensive than providing transcripts."

> - Should we mention authoring tools (and CMS's) in the "not well 
> integrated" sentence too? (I know it comes a little later, but seems 
> pertinent here.)

Yes. I wonder if "web software" is enough? See updated draft.

> # Section "WAI at W3C"
> I did like Liam's inclusion of "brings together people from industry, 
> disability organisations, government and research labs" to indicate who 
> is involved in developing the "strategies, guidelines, and resources".

Like it too but wonder if it makes the sentence too long? See what you think in the new draft. ("You" in that sentence means all of EOWG!)

Best,
~Shawn

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 02:03:33 UTC