[wbs] response to 'EOWG Call for Review: Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility, 2006 March'

Here are the answers submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: Why Standards
Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility, 2006 March' (Education
and Outreach Working Group) for Jack Welsh.



---------------------------------
Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility
----




 * ( ) I accept this version of the document as is
 * (x) I accept this version of the document, and suggest changes below
 * ( ) I accept this version of the document only with the changes below
 * ( ) I do not accept this version of the document because of the
comments below
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)





---------------------------------
Comments
----
Comments on the document, formatted as described above.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Location: Current situation
Current wording: Omitting or adding accessibility provisions likewise
changes what is required to meet a given level of conformance. This may
similarly make it more difficult for developers of authoring tools and
evaluation tools to support theresulting reduced or expanded conformance
levels. 
Proposed revision: . . to support the resulting reduced or expanded
conformance levels. 
Rationale: space missing between 'the resulting'

Location: Fragmentation Driver/Reason for Harmonization table
Current wording: Because Web technologies are constantly evolving, ongoing
development and maintenance of local guidelines and techniques into the
future may be prohibitively resource-intensive.
Proposed revision: Because Web technologies are constantly evolving,
ongoing development and maintenance of local guidelines and techniques
into the future often are prohibitively resource-intensive.
Rationale: By changing the second sentence from 'may be' to 'often are', I
think we may be more compelling in the case we make and more accurate.

Location: Fragmentation Driver/Reason for Harmonization table
Current wording: These tools and resources develop more rapidly when there
is a unified marketaround a consistent international set of Web
accessibility standards. 
Proposed wording: These tools and resources develop more rapidly when
there is a unified market around a consistent international set of Web
accessibility standards.
Rationale: space missing between 'market around'

Location: Action Steps
Current wording: has a list of six steps.
Proposed revision: make bullets instead of numbered steps.
Rationale: Steps suggest a sequential order rather than bullets which
suggest a list.

Location: Action Steps
General comment: Not for this version, but at some point in the future, do
we want to add a bullet that deals more directly with legal requirements?
 


These answers were last modified on 16 March 2006 at 03:03:31 U.T.C.
by Jack Welsh

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/harmon/ until 2006-03-18.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 03:10:19 UTC