[wbs] response to 'EOWG Call for Review: Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site, 2006 March'

Here are the answers submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: Improving the
Accessibility of Your Web Site, 2006 March' (Education and Outreach
Working Group) for Shadi Abou-Zahra.



---------------------------------
Support for Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site
----




 * ( ) 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.
 
priority: editor's discretion
location: Introduction
current wording: "Sites developed to meet other Web standards (for
example, XHTML and CSS) usually have fewer barriers"
suggested revision: "Sites developed to meet newer Web standards (for
example, XHTML and CSS) usually are more ready for accessibility"
rationale: the word "other" is confusing to me (other than what?). Also,
it is questionabke that sites with XHTML and/or CSS are indeed more
accessible per se.

priority: editor's discretion
location: Introduction
current wording: "This document provides guidance for fixing accessibility
barriers"
suggested revision: "This document provides guidance for improving
accessibility"
rationale: "Fixing" sounds to me like techniques type "how to fix a
specific problem"

priority: editor's discretion
location: Setting the Target
current wording: "Many organizations use WCAG"
suggested revision: "Many organizations use the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines"
rationale: first *clear* occurence of the acronym (the other one is within
a list item titled "Essential Components" thus not very visible)

priority: editor's discretion
location: Setting the Target
current wording: Paragraph #2
suggested revision: Explain more clearly "accessibility level" target, and
"web site" (or web pages) target
rationale: one target is "i want/need to meet level X accessibility",
another one is "i want/need to fix this page/group/application/site
first". These two slightly different things are not well explained and the
paragraph is a little confusing.

priority: editor's discretion
location: Setting the Target
current wording: "your target will be at least that level"
suggested revision: "your target may be at least that level"
rationale: it seems to encourage setting minimal targets (even though this
is sadly the reality in practice)

priority: editor's discretion
location: Evaluating to Identify the Issues
current wording: "It is usually most efficient to first identify all of
the accessibility barriers on your site"
suggested revision: "It is usually most efficient to first get an idea of
the accessibility barriers on your site"
rationale: finding *all* the barriers may be a huge task and not very
usefull if the site is large. It may be more efficient to iterate between
evaluation and repairing and this way drill down from major to more
specific issues.

priority: editor's discretion
location: Evaluating to Identify the Issues
current wording: whole section
suggested revision: consider adding something about how the type of the
site effects the evaluation, for example is it developed using a CMS? is
the site highly homogenous? is there a centralized development team?
rationale: the text seems to lean heavily on the scenario of a large web
site with different content authors scattered throughout an organization

priority: editor's discretion
location: Evaluation and Repair Tools
current wording: "There are also tools that help repair accessibility
barriers. Some repair functions are built into evaluation tools, and some
tools focus only on repair, such as HTML Tidy"
suggested revision: "Some evaluation tools also provide different
functionality for repairing accessibility. There are also tools that focus
only on repairing accessibility barriers."
rationale: flip the order to introduce the tools in more logical order,
and to focus on introducing tools rather than functionality. also dropped
"HTML Tidy" because it is not so focused on accessibility repair (but
rather validation and code clean-up)

priority: editor's discretion
location: Evaluation and Repair Tools
current wording: "database of over 75 tools that can"
suggested revision: "database that can"
rationale: the database currently contains over 100 tools and is expected
to be fairly dynamic, fixing a number may be impractical


These answers were last modified on 17 March 2006 at 04:37:46 U.T.C.
by Shadi Abou-Zahra

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/retro1-2006/ until 2006-03-16.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 04:40:12 UTC