Re: For Review: Making Presentations Accessible [Rough Draft] - due 22 March

Hi Shawn,

A few additional comments ...

* Provide material ahead of time - and make it accessible.
  - here I would say more, but it could also include large-print, 
braille, or an RTF file, in addition to HTML (as mentioned later on 
under "handouts")

* Work with interpreter or CART typist.
  - I wonder if people new to accessibility (or with a narrow view of 
it) might not realise that 'interpreter' means 'sign-language interpreter'?
  - don't think we need to go into detail

* Caption or otherwise make available audio, including for videos.
  - I think we might need to say this - not everyone with hearing 
difficulties will be relying on CART or signing. (E.g. you already 
implied lip-reading under "Arrange for good lighting".)

* Other
  - the introduction mentions training, which could include hands-on, so 
there may be a need for accessible facilities for this aspect

Apologies for adding these late.

Cheers, Andrew

Andrew Arch wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
> # Use an easy-to-read font face. [V] - Avoid fancy fonts that are 
> difficult to read. [@@ can we say more? e.g., san-serif -- or does even 
> that then require too much explanation?]
> - maybe we can say "avoid fonts with (very) thin strokes/elements"
> # Use sufficient color contrast. [V]
> - should we remind readers that projected colours are different from 
> their screen colours? Maybe too generic.
> Shawn Henry wrote:
>> EOWG,
>> I have updated the analysis/requirements (including scope) and the 
>> draft document based on our EOWG teleconference discussion today.
>> * Analysis with scope, etc. is at: 
>> * Latest draft is at: 
>> Please review both of these for content, and the document for 
>> high-level issues. (It is still rough so no need to comment on the 
>> detailed copyediting level yet.) Make sure to refresh with your 
>> browser to get the latest version.
>> Here are some questions for your review and comment via e-mail:
>> * Is anything missing? Are their areas where we want to provide more 
>> specific or detailed guidance? (Keep in mind the limited scope and 
>> desire to keep it short.)
>> * Should anything be cut out to simplify and shorten the document?
>> * What do you think about the terminology options: Presentations, 
>> Talks, Meetings, Training, Sessions? (Note what is included in the 
>> scope and what is out of scope, at 
>> )
>> * What about the title? Should we have a short title with only one 
>> term, and then in the first sentence clarify that it applies to 
>> different situations, using more of the terms? See title ideas at 
>> * What do you think about each editorial question throughout the draft 
>> document? They are highlighted green and surrounded by: [@@ question ?]
>> Please send comments to the EOWG list:
>> (If you are compelled to send copyedits or other things that don't 
>> need EOWG consideration, send them to the EO editors' list: 
>> )
>> When sending comments, please include the date and time of the 
>> document that your comments apply to. It is at the top after "Editor's 
>> Draft" in the format: $Date: 2010/03/12 13:23:59 $
>> Please send your comments in e-mail *by Monday 22 March*.
>> Regards,
>> ~Shawn
>> -----
>> Shawn Lawton Henry
>> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>> e-mail:
>> phone: +1.617.395.7664
>> about:

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 16:31:11 UTC