- 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