Stds Harmonization doc comments from Vicki [Fwd: further thoughts]

  Hi Judy,

I wanted to make sure this got noticed in your In-Box, given the original subject line was not clear.

~Shawn


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	further thoughts
Date: 	Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:25:21 +0200
From: 	Victoria Menezes Miller <menezesmiller@gmail.com>
To: 	Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, jbrewer@w3.org



Dear Shawn/Judy,

Some further comments whilst they are fresh in my mind.  If you wish me to re-send to the group, please let me know:

*Executive Summary:*

The sentence needs to convince me as to why W3C standards are the ones to follow.  It is missing impact.  I have two suggestions.

*Suggestion 1:  if you wish to keep the first sentence, is it possible to remove "broadly accepted"* as it is too "wishy-washy"

Although worldwide standards for Web accessibility, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, have existed for a number of years, some national and local governments continue to develop their own standards.

OR

*Suggestion 2:  modify the paragraph to state why WCAG is the standard to follow. *Use the inverted pyramid triangle tactic in writing for the web, i.e., put the conclusion up front.  The sentence is borrowed from the "Introduction".

Making the Web accessible to people with disabilities is a global challenge that has been addressed through a multi-stakeholder, consensus-based process involving governments, industry, people with disabilities, and researchers. W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 is recognized as the world’s leading standard for accessibility of Web content. Although worldwide standards for Web accessibility, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, have existed for a number of years, some national and local governments continue to develop their own standards.

Further thoughts on the bullet point on web standards.  Perhaps, replace "diminishes" with "can diminish", see below underlined in green:

    * *Web accessibility standards help put the goal within reach*, while “fragmentation” –development of local versions of Web accessibility standards – _can diminish_ the pace of progress. National governments that set different requirements from international standards are sometimes unaware that Web accessibility standards are designed to address the full spectrum of international requirements, believing that only locally-developed guidelines can meet the needs of local disability communities.

*Food for thought:*

    * Perhaps, add something somewhere about the fact that the web has no boundaries and, therefore, the aspect of an international standard (cross-border, cross-device) versus a local standard is important.

    * By the way, just the way we work today may mean that someone in India is updating a page for someone in Germany.  An international standard, with interoperable tools, adds to the justification for why it is important to have an international standard rather than a local one.

*Bullet points:*

If the bullet points on "Fragmentation" are kept, is it possible to *remove* "*also*" in red below:

*Fragmentation is also a business issue*.
*Fragmentation may also impede interoperability with other standards which rely on Web accessibility*
*
Under "Harmonization" heading,*

Suggestion, replace "confers" with "offers"

*Standards harmonization confers numerous advantages*:
Standards harmonization _offers_ numerous advantages.

Last suggestion, replace "it" with "those techniques"

•*The locality can then also contribute its implementation techniques back to the W3C* and have _those techniques_ included as supporting material for WCAG 2.0 going forward.

Best,

Vicki

Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 14:15:11 UTC