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

Thanks, Andrew! Replies below.

* Analysis with scope, etc. is at:
* Latest draft is at:

Andrew Arch wrote:
> 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")

I added a link to

> * 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

I changed "interpreter" to "sign language interpreter".

> * 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".)

I added: "Ideally, any audio you use is also available in text, for example, videos are captioned. However, if CART is available, that can provide text of the audio."

I think that needs some tweaking, however. Suggestions welcome!

Note that captions are beyond the skill of many presenters and we don't want this to be too overwhelming, so it would be good to present easy, inexpensive options for accessibility here and throughout.

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

I don't understand your point here?

The second item under Planning is:
Ensure the facility is accessible.
For example, ensure the building entrance, meeting room, break rooms, etc. are accessible by wheelchair; ensure adequate sound system, including working ALD/hearing loop with sufficient batteries as needed. (There are checklists online to help ensure a facility is accessible.)

and later is:
Consider activities.
Remember accessibility issues with any participant activities, such as arranging sticky notes, small group projects, etc. ... [@@ is this too vague? is more guidance out of scope or will make the document too long].

Does that cover it, or are you suggesting something else?


> 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 Wednesday, 24 March 2010 19:06:49 UTC