W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Making Presentations Accessible [Review Draft]

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:28:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4BAA59BC.5020303@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
Thanks, Liam!

*EOWG*: Additional questions for your input are below.

* Analysis with scope, etc. is at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-training#accessible
* Latest draft is at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/training/access_pres

Liam McGee wrote:
> Hi all. Date and time reviewed:  $Date: 2010/03/22 21:03:56 $
> 
> First, to add to the title brainstrom: How To Make Presentations Accessible

I changed it for now - open to additional discussion.

> This How to [verb] format is far more common in search queries than the 
> gerund (-ing) form.

I added note to changelog.

>> * 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.)
> 
> Ensure the facility is accessible.
> Suggest: add in check that there is a hearing loop and that it is 
> working order.

I added: "ensure adequate sound system, including working ALD/hearing loop with sufficient batteries as needed".

>> * Should anything be cut out to simplify and shorten the document?
> 
> I think the length is appropriate to the subject
> 
>> * 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
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-training#accessible )
> 
> I think that meetings are too different to presentations to be covered 
> here. Likewise, training covers whole areas that presentations do ont. 
> Suggest keeping it focused on chalk-and-talk style (OK, click and talk) 
> presentations. 'Talks' might be an appropriate synonym.

Are there things that you think should be done for meetings that are not included in this draft? If not, is it OK to include meetings in the scope?

We currently have "This page addresses in-person sessions; there are additional considerations for online, remote, and virtual sessions." under "For More Information" at the end. (We moved it from the beginning to try to make the doc less scary at the beginning.)

If we were to cover in-person "training" how much would it expand the document?

Conversely, if we exclude "training", what can we cut from the document? The "Consider activities" point? Any others?

>> * 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
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-training#title2
> 
> Say what it does. If it is to cover training and meetings as weell, it 
> should say so in the title.

EOWG: Other thoughts on short title versus comprehensive title?

>> * What do you think about each editorial question throughout the draft
>> document? They are highlighted green and surrounded by: [@@ question ?]
> 
> Provide material ahead of time.
> Suggest that we recommend it is provided in html format, to WCAG2 AA

I added: "It is often best to provide material in HTML (web code) format and ensure that it meets WCAG 2.0, at least Level AA."

> Consider activities.
> Yes, it is too vague. Give examples. Typical might be arranging sticky 
> notes in groups, voting buttons, splitting off to do group work.

I added: ", such as arranging sticky notes, small group projects, etc."
and expanded the reviewer question: "[@@ is this too vague? is more guidance out of scope or will make the document too long]."

> Work with interpreter or CART typist.
> I think that detail here is not necessary - the interpreter or CART 
> typist will be the person to bring these sorts of issues to the person's 
> attention.
> 
> Use an easy to read font face.
> Sans is not *always* easier to read than serif - too much of a 
> generalisation. Suggest mentioning a few commonly available fonts by 
> name instead.

um - I wonder if that would be more complicated on our end. Maybe just saying "Use an easy-to-read font face. Avoid fancy fonts that are difficult to read." is enough given the scope of this document/page?

> Caption or otherwise make available audio...
> Well, if CART is not available then a transcript after the event would 
> be a good fallback.

I meant the after-the-event stuff to be covered under "Providing recording afterwards". Maybe that point should be expanded?

> Preparing Handouts
> Could mention font size, line length, line spacing, colours and 
> contrast. Mention different ways of presenting data - graphical, 
> tabulated, narrative description.

Right. My first reaction is that would start down a slippery slope of scope creep. What do others think?

---

Thanks again, Liam!

Note: I also added to the draft an idea to put a catchy intro at the top. *Comments and ideas needed* on that as well.

Best,
~Shawn
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 18:28:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:44 UTC