Re: Publishing Accessible Presentations - reply by Wednesday 31 March

Shawn and Ian, I have not had (and will not have) time to read the full document, but, given the concern many have expressed over its length, I think this is precisely the kind of detail that could be sacrificed. If there is concern that the concept will be lost, I would suggest adding "responding to polls" or "responding to questions" as a third example of "activities."
Chhers (or, as the case may be, cheers),
Cliff Tyllick
Usability specialist and Web development coordinator
Agency Communications Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

>>> Shawn Henry <> 3/31/2010 12:45 PM >>>
Thanks for the comments, Ian. Replies below.

Ian Pouncey wrote:
> In my last read through noticed a couple of things, which are minor
> enough that I hadn't noticed them before.
>    * There is a sentence saying 'Speaker: "How many people make their
> websites fully accessible? Please raise your hand... About half raised
> their hand."' and early in the document another saying 'your audience
> might not be ... move well or at all'. The showing of hands is a
> common practice in presentations. Do we need to provide some
> information on how to poll the audience in an inclusive and accessible
> way?

Ah, right. [Shawn thinks about it...]

After some thought, I think that issue is not significant enough to warrant adding to this document. (We have a catch-all item "Consider activities. Remember accessibility issues with any participant activities (arranging sticky notes, small group projects, etc.)."

EOWG: Other perspectives?

>    * Minor editorial point: missing word 'as' between 'such' and 'a'
> in the sentence 'Avoid distracting background, such a bright sunlight
> or flashing light.', and should that either be 'Avoid using a
> distracting background' or 'Avoid distracting backgrounds'?

Fixed to: Avoid distracting backgrounds, such as bright sunlight or flashing light.


> It is in good shape for publishing as it is for review.
> Regards,
> Ian.
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Shawn Henry <> wrote:
>> EOWG,
>> How to Make Presentations Accessible to All is updated online at:
>> Please let me know *by Wednesday 31 March* if you approve publishing it as a
>> draft for review[1], have comments, or if you would like more time to review
>> it.
>> Remember to send comments to the appropriate mailing list:
>> - EOWG <> for significant issues and things that need
>> discussion
>> - EOWG editors <> for minor editorial comments that
>> don't need discussion
>> The Analysis with scope, etc.; links to previous drafts and EOWG minutes;
>> and a list of changes made today is under:
>> Thanks,
>> ~Shawn
>> [1] Example announcement of a draft-for-review publication:
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: For Review: Making Presentations Accessible [Rough Draft] - due 22
>> March
>> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:16:31 -0600
>> From: Shawn Henry <>
>> To: EOWG (E-mail) <>
>> CC: Judy Brewer <>
>> 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, 31 March 2010 19:21:40 UTC