June 3 Draft: Why Standards Harmonization is Essential for the Web

EOWG:

I'm will outline some comments on the "Why 
Standards Harmonization is Essential" draft, dated June 3.

I'll note them in two sets.  The first will be 
substantive, and the second will be editorial. 
While editorial may be premature at this point, 
at least these will be identified for double-checking, when appropriate.

Substantive:

1.  I don't know whether links just haven't been 
added, or whether there will be footnoted 
references, but don't we need to cite the UN Convention reference?

Perhaps quote it somewhere, such as in a footnote?

I'm referring to:

"and a right under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities."

2.  Will there be a citation for the 
statistics?  I see a lot of stats tossed around, 
people are always looking for them, and I see 
them misused and mis-interpreted more often than I'd like.

I am referring to:
"Web access has quintupled
since 2000, with an astonishing 1.9 billion people, or 28% of the world’s
population, now using the Web. However, for the 10% of the world’s population
with disabilities ­ roughly 650 million people - the Web may not be so easily
accessed, if at all."

3.  I wonder if it would be helpful to mention 
the mobile Web.  Perhaps at least a nod to it is 
out of scope, but it is important, including in developing countries.

Editorial:

A.  "(WAI) guidelines for Web content, authoring 
tools, browsers [add comma] and media players"

B. "who must track multiple differing
standards and learn how to apply [different standards -- change to them.]

C.  This includes adoption of the
freely available international standard, [del and] availability of large,
detailed, and authoritative online technical reference materials, and
education and training materials."

JS: Generally, this sentence seems awkward to me.

D. "Policy [delete space and write as 
Policy-makers] makers, accessibility advocates, and industry proponents
of Web accessibility have a common interest in standards"

E.  "Additional information on
rationales, approaches, and resources follow 
[should be follows -- information follows].

F. The issue is the same as in Item D:
"can address the needs of policy[del space and 
add hyphen]makers, industry, and people with
disabilities.

  This is correct elsewhere, so I recommend that 
it be checked for consistency. I'm not going to 
continue to cite instances, here.

G. "In each cases [should be case], the technical 
meaning of the original, internationally developed"

H. "The locality can then also contribute its implementation
techniques back to the W3C and have [it -- change 
to them since the reference is to techniques] 
included as supporting material for WCAG 2.0 going forward."

I'm going to stop, here. Given that I'm on the 
West Coast, I'm in DESPERATE need of more coffee before our call.

Best,
Jennifer

Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 12:23:02 UTC