- From: Andrew Arch <andrew@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:51:07 +0100
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- CC: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
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 :)
> - 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.
> - 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.
> ## 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 ..."
> - 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
> - 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
> - 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
> ## Financial Factors
> - validation error (simple ID name mismatch)
Validated for me :)
> - 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
Happy to discuss any of the above.
Cheers, Andrew
> Regards,
> Shadi
>
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 20:51:40 UTC