- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:16:05 +0200
- To: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
These did not fit into the WBS. priority: mild location: throughout current wording: Web accessibility suggested revision: web accessibility rationale: I think it is convention to use lower case for all new WAI publications priority: strong location: Executive Summary, first paragraph and throughout current wording: governments suggested revision: organizations and governments rationale: the first paragraph only talks about governments while other parts of the document speak of "organizations and governments". This needs to be unified. Actually, it may be good to define "organizations" to include governments in the first paragraph, then use that term throughout rather than the slightly lengthier "organizations and governments" priority: mild location: Executive Summary, second paragraph current wording: Accessibility of the Web is essential to enable the participation of people with disabilities in the Information Society suggested revision: remove bolding rationale: unclear why this text is bold; it seems to be a point about the importance of standards harmonization but after reading the paragraph it is more about the importance of accessibility priority: strong location: Executive Summary, second paragraph current wording: Adopting or referencing W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) standards in regional, national, local and organizational policies can bring the goal of an accessible Web within reach, while divergent national and local versions—standards fragmentation—can slow potential progress suggested revision: Adopting or referencing W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) standards in regional, national, local and organizational policies can bring the goal of an accessible Web within reach. Creating modified national and local versions—standards fragmentation—slows potential progress on the long run rationale: First point is to disambiguate "divergent" -- many organizations think that their adapted versions of WCAG is a form of adoption rather than divergence. Second point is to try and remove the "can" from the second (part of the) sentence to make it stronger further note: this sentence unnecessarily repeats the sentence "some governments develop multiple divergent standards, potentially slowing progress towards the goal of an accessible Web" in the first paragraph priority: strong location: Executive Summary, second paragraph issue: is this paragraph really necessary? what is it saying that is important and not in other parts of the executive summary? suggestion: remove entire paragraph priority: medium location: Executive Summary, third paragraph current wording: Fragmentation of standards is an economic issue for government, businesses, and Web developers suggested revision: Fragmentation of standards brings/causes economic disadvantages for government, businesses, and Web developers OR Fragmentation of standards increases economic load on government, businesses, and Web developers rationale: "is an economic issue" is not clear - is it more of an economic issue that non-fragmentation? priority: strong location: Executive Summary, third paragraph (bullet item #2) current wording: many mainstream authoring tools and evaluation tools will not support local standards issue: several tool developers do support multiple standards; some claim that multiple standards are not an issue for them (actually it is a market advantage when they can claim to cover standards that other tool developers don't) priority: strong location: Executive Summary, third and fourth paragraph issue: is it important to have more or less the same points listed twice (once in terms of fragmentation and once in terms of harmonization, but essentially still the same points)? I think this potentially reduces the credibility as it sound like only 2-3 points that are being repeated differently rather than a solid set of unique arguments suggestion: merge into one single list with strong arguments (maybe use the more positive "harmonization" angle?) priority: medium location: Executive Summary, last paragraph current wording: More information follows on the benefits of standards harmonization for Web accessibility, and how to use existing technical and educational resources to support national and local Web accessibility progress. issue: is this necessary? suggestion: drop paragraph priority: medium location: Introduction, throughout issue: too much bolding of seemingly random points suggestion: remove all bolding from this section priority: mild location: Introduction, first paragraph current wording: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities suggested revision: please link to the UNCRPD rationale: for people who do not know what this is and want to learn more about it priority: mild location: Introduction, second paragraph current wording: This vision has evolved into one of the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) primary goals, ensuring that the benefits of the Web are available to all people, whatever their language, abilities, or Web access devices may be suggested revision: This vision has evolved into one of the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) primary goals of ensuring that the benefits of the Web are available to all people whatever their language, abilities, or their web access devices may be rationale: the comma structure makes it difficult for me to read; I am trying to improve the flow of the sentence priority: mild location: Introduction, second paragraph current wording: A core aspect of W3C's work has been the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), helping lead the Web to its full potential, which includes enabling people with disabilities to participate equally on the Web suggested revision: A core aspect of W3C's work has been the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) which develops strategies, guidelines, and resources to make the Web accessible to people with disabilities rationale: I did not understand the sentence, in particular what is meant by "helping lead the Web to its full potential"; also, what does it mean that WAI "includes enabling people with disabilities to participate equally on the Web" -- are you suggesting that WAI has other focus besides accessibility? priority: mild location: Introduction, third paragraph current wording: Web accessibility also benefits others, including older people with changing abilities due to aging suggested revision: Web accessibility addresses people with changing abilities due to ageing and also benefits many others such as people with low literacy, with low bandwidth, or using mobile devices rationale: we identified through the WAI-AGE project that web accessibility is more than just beneficial to older people; this is the important point in my suggestion (the rest is an editorial suggestion) priority: mild location: Introduction, fourth paragraph current wording: It addresses four key principles of Web accessibility suggested revision: It addresses the four key principles of Web accessibility rationale: sounds like it "only" address four (of potentially many) principles priority: mild location: Introduction, fourth paragraph (bulleted list) current wording: To make Web content X, ... suggested revision: To make Web content X - ... (or ":" instead) rationale: comma makes the entire bullet into a sentence although it isn't (for the first three at least); it makes the text confusing to read; also consider removing the repetitive "to make web content" (maybe just start with X right away?) priority: mild location: Introduction, fifth paragraph issue: consider using a bulleted list to make this more scanable priority: medium location: Fragmentation Concerns, throughout issue: too much bolding of seemingly random points suggestion: remove all bolding from this section priority: medium location: Fragmentation Concerns, title current wording: Fragmentation Concerns with Web Accessibility Standards suggested revision: Negative Impact of Standards Fragmentation rationale: the title seems ambiguous and difficult to understand; more importantly, are these just "concerns" or more serious issues that we want to convey to the reader? priority: strong location: Fragmentation Concerns, second paragraph current wording: Sometimes local standards combine two or more accessibility provisions, or omit or add provisions suggested revision: Sometimes local standards change, combine, omit, add, or change the [priority] level of accessibility provisions rationale: changing the provisions and changing their level were missing from the list; note that the term "priority" has been dropped for good reason -- please try to find another word that conveys the essence of the meaning priority: mild location: Fragmentation Concerns, second paragraph current wording: However, changing the wording of individual provisions of WCAG can result in unintentionally changing the technical meaning of the provision suggested revision: In particular changing the wording of individual provisions often results in changing the technical meaning of the provision and thus causing compatibility conflicts (or just incompatibility) rationale: (1) better aligned with previous suggestion; (2) removed unnecessary focus on WCAG alone; (3) removed "can" and "unintentionally" to make the point stronger; (4) tried to explain the impact of "changing the technical meaning" priority: mild location: Fragmentation Concerns, third paragraph issue: what about cases when accessibility requirements are not well understood or when local disability organizations are demanding divergence (often claimed to be improvements)? priority: medium location: Standards Harmonization, title current wording: Why Standards Harmonization Helps Web Accessibility suggested revision: Benefits of Standards Harmonization rationale: does standards harmonization *help* web accessibility or is it essential to it (see document title)? priority: medium location: Standards Harmonization, throughout issue: too much bolding of seemingly random points suggestion: remove all bolding from this section priority: medium location: Standards Harmonization, first paragraph current wording: In the harmonization process, a government adopting WCAG 2.0 has access to an extensive library of supporting implementation techniques issue: in the harmonization process or in the implementation process? also, shouldn't this be one of the bullet points rather than part of this paragraph (maybe added to the last bullet item)? priority: medium location: Standards Harmonization, first paragraph current wording: Expanded implementation techniques can be shared with W3C/WAI for others to use issue: this needs further explanation, in particular of the term "implementation techniques"; I think this, together with the previous point (see previous comment) need their own bullet item or maybe even paragraph *after* the bulleted list priority: mild location: after Standards Harmonization issue: some sort of a "conclusion" is missing -- this can be part of the first paragraph of the Using W3C/WAI Standards and Supporting Resources section; just a brief sentence or two repeating that standards harmonization benefits all and that it is feasible (and more effective on the long run) priority: mild location: Using W3C/WAI Standards and Supporting Resources issue: should WAI IG be highlighted as a place to turn to, to discuss questions and get help? priority: mild location: Use implementation techniques and developer resources that accompany each standard issue: the term "implementation techniques" may not be understood by all readers (see related comments for the "Standards Harmonization" section) priority: medium location: Using W3C/WAI Standards and Supporting Resources, Engage with stakeholders suggestion: consider linking to "Involving Users in Web Projects" from here -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 23:16:37 UTC