Re: minor comments on Business Case document

Hi Shadi (and Shawn)

See inline below. Both /drafts/bcase/... and /drafts/bcase/age/... 
versions updated.

Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Arch wrote:
>> Thanks Shadi - see inline below:
>>
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> First of all, thank you for addressing my previous comments. I think 
>>> these changes are great.
>>>
>>> Please find below some additional minor comments on the Business Case 
>>> for your consideration:
>>>
>>> ## Overview
>>> - validation error (simple ID name mismatch)
>>
>> Validated for me :)
> 
> OK, we are using different validation tools. Please see line 259:
>  - <a name="realted" id="related" shape="rect">

W3C validator missed this - but corrected now

>>> - s/The Web is increasingly an essential resource many aspects of 
>>> life/The Web is increasingly an essential resource in many aspects of 
>>> life (typo - forgot "in")
>>
>> Done - but used 'for' rather than 'in'
>>
>>> - consider a different word for "recoup" (not very common word)
>>
>> Retained for now - 'recoup' is a common EN business term. I considered 
>> 'recover' but subtly different and broader.
> 
> For me, the term "recoup" means making up for something that is lost. 
> Something more positive could be more motivating. Editor's discretion.

OK - will consider further. Shawn, any suggestions?

>>> - s/so too do their business cases/so do their business cases
>>
>> Retained for now - it was LisaP's editorial suggestion which I think 
>> adds emphasis to the differences that arise. If SLH & SAZ insisit I 
>> _could_ accept changing this.
> 
> I'll leave this to you and Shawn as native speakers (and maybe others 
> too). It was difficult for me to read. Editor's discretion.

Shawn, I'd value your opinion on this one too please.

>>> ## Social Factors
>>> - s/including older people with age-related impairments/including 
>>> people with age-related functional limitations ("impairment" 
>>> unnecessary here)
>>
>> Was 'Done' - retained after EO discussion
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/29-eo-minutes.html#item02
>>
>>> - s/To estimate how many people are affected by Web accessibility is 
>>> difficult/It is difficult to estimate how many people are affected by 
>>> Web accessibility (I personally think it is easier to read this way)
>>
>> Trying "Estimating how many people are affected by Web accessibility is
>> difficult because ..."
> 
> Works better for me. Just curious what was the motivation for changing 
> the initial wording in the first place?

LisaP with her copy-editing hat on.

>>> - s/Overlap with Design for Older Users/Overlap with Older Users Needs
>>
>> Done - based on follow-up emails where Shadi said "Don't want to 
>> reduce Web accessibility requirements to design alone. A lot of our 
>> findings relate to tools and services being inaccessible."
>>
>>> - consider "vision/hearing/physical/cognitive decline" rather than 
>>> the term "impairment" in the bullets of "Overlap with Design for 
>>> Older Users" (reduce use of the term (label) "impairment" where 
>>> possible)
>>
>> Done - but after EO discussion should impairment be retained?
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/29-eo-minutes.html#item02
> 
> I personally like these changes. We are talking about Web accessibility 
> guidelines addressing older peoples needs. These may not be necessarily 
> impairments that constitute a disability in the usual sense. Even very 
> mild vision or cognitive decline can be well assisted by a better level 
> of usability that is promoted by the Web accessibility guidelines.

Good argument

> Note: later on when we are talking about specific benefits and mapping 
> these to Success Criteria, then talking about the actual impairments as 
> per EO discussion seems more sensible (see below).
> 
> 
>>> - s/The accessibility provisions that make the Web accessible provide 
>>> many benefits for people experiencing impairments due to the ageing 
>>> process/The accessibility provisions that make the Web accessible 
>>> provide many benefits for people experiencing impairments due to the 
>>> ageing process, even though they may not be regarded as having a 
>>> disability (we first say that "people with disabilities includes 
>>> older people with functional decline", then we say that 
>>> "accessibility also benefits people without disabilities including 
>>> older people" -- trying to qualify it here, and make the 
>>> relationships very clear)
>>
>> Done - good suggestion
>>
>>> - s/Older people with age-related visual deterioration benefit 
>>> from/Older people with visual decline benefit from
>>> - s/Older people with diminished fine motor control benefit 
>>> from/Older people with reduced fine motor control benefit from
>>> - s/Older people with hearing loss benefit from/Older people with 
>>> hearing decline benefit from
>>
>> Done somewhat:
>>  - visual deterioration > deteriorating vision
>>  - diminished fine motor control > reduced dexterity
>>  - 'hearing loss' retained
> 
> Yes, I agree with this based on the EO discussion.
> 
> PS: note typo s/dexterityl/dexterity

oops, fixed

>>> - consider adding something about cognitive disabilities in 
>>> sub-section "Access for Older People", even if you just deffer to the 
>>> "Access for People with Low Literacy and People Not Fluent in the 
>>> Language" which has the relevant Success Criteria and Checkpoint 
>>> mappings
>>
>> Done
> 
> Do we want to use "limitations" or "impairment" or "decline" here? I 
> vote for "decline". Also, consider the following change:
> 
> s/Older people with cognitive limitations will benefit from similar 
> aspects as those those with low literacy/Older people with cognitive 
> decline will benefit from similar aspects as people with low literacy 
> and people not fluent in the language.
> 
> Rationale:
>  - corrected "those those" in the sentence
>  - removed the term "those" to be inclusive
>  - added "people not fluent in language" to reflect the section title 
> and to avoid any myth about older people having lower literacy

Nice - done

>>> ## Financial Factors
>>> - validation error (simple ID name mismatch)
>>
>> Validated for me :)
> 
> Line 344:
>  - <a name="atl-format" id="alt-format" shape="rect">

W3C validator missed this - but corrected now

>>> - s/Testing design ideas and early prototypes with users with 
>>> disabilities and older users, and including assistive 
>>> technologies/Testing design ideas and early prototypes with users 
>>> with disabilities and older users, and with assistive technologies
>>
>> Done
> 
> Thanks for addressing my suggestions.

You're welcome.  Andrew

> Best,
>   Shadi
>

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 13:16:02 UTC