Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Survey - Showcase Examples February 2016'

Thanks Shadi. I do like the scripts on the whole. I think the approaches
are engaging and I'm impressed with how much they manage to convey in such
a short amount of time. Couple of replies below:


>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Script 3: Voice Recognition
>>> ----
>>>
>> Scene 1 is confusing. I had to read it a couple of times to understand how
>> it connects to the topic but I worry viewers won't have the time or
>> attention to do so.
>>
>> It's confusing because it implies the purpose of having speech is saving
>> time but the need for voice recognition is not for the benefit of time
>> saved. I would have to think on it a bit to come up with a suggestion to
>> replace it but I strongly feel this is not a good lead-in concept.
>>
>
> Maybe we could turn this around to something like "imagine you could use
> your computer through voice rather than by typing"? We would have similar
> visuals where people first communicate by typing then through voice, but
> with a different message. Would that address your concern?
>
> That would help the confusion, yes. As long as the rest of the video made
clear that a. some people have reasons where not typing is a need, not just
a choice and b. the inability of a site to work for them is on the site
creators, not the hardware.


>
> Also switch the order of the visuals in scene four to the person using the
>> computer by typing and then the scene turning into the same person with a
>> cast now using voice recognition.
>>
>
> One of the issues is that using voice is not really all that easy. We do
> not want to suggest that one can simply switch to voice only. By using
> different people, there is less of such an implication. What do you think,
> would it be acceptable to keep this as-is?
>
> I didn't realize it was different people. I thought it was the same
person, now healed continuing to use voice. This was a much lesser concern
for me than the first comment. I thought by switching it we would better
showing someone who had a temporary impairment.

>
> ---------------------------------
>>> Script 4: Text to Speech
>>> ----
>>>
>>
>> Suggest changing "especially in terms of audience " in first scene to
>> "especially when visually reading text is difficult because of an
>> impairment" or similar. "Audience" doesn't seem very clear to me.
>>
>
> I agree that this is potentially confusing. However, the more text we add,
> the more the viewer has to read (in a short time). How about we just remove
> that last part "especially in terms of audience"?
>
> That works.

>
> Also, perhaps we can switch the gender of the actors to a woman sitting in
>> an office and a man doing the washing? It might seem a minor thing to some
>> but that kind of representation goes far for others.
>>
>
> Do you mean gender balance altogether (which we certainly consider - also
> ethnic diversity) or are you suggesting a female person for this particular
> video? Note that we also have a "mum" in this video. The gender of the
> other characters is not yet defined (left to casting).
>
> So the female actor is already cast here? This role and the one in the
> Voice Recognition script (where the mum is asking the child what he wants
> for tea) were a couple of the only places where gender was specified and
> they were in the stereotypical roles of child and house care. I'm certain
> gender balance is being considered; let's be sure to be conscious of gender
> role balance as well. If the woman here is already cast perhaps one of her
> appearances doesn't involve domestic work or men are featured elsewhere in
> the videos doing those types of tasks as well.



>
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Script 9: Simple Language
>>>
>>
>> Suggestion for scene 3:
>>
>> A complicated form seems more applicable to consistent layout than
>> language. Maybe he should pull up a recipe that's full of jargon and
>> unexplained acronyms. This would match the narration for that scene and
>> overall subject better.
>>
>
> The focus here is on the instructions of forms, which are often way too
> complicated. Would it address your concern if we changed the visuals to
> "but the instructions on the online form are very complicated"?
>

Sounds good.

>
>
> ---------------------------------
>>> Script 10: Keyboard Compatibility
>>> ----
>>>
>>
>> Change scene one to match the fifth. Having a window that doesn't open
>> won't prevent you from driving a car nor is it related to the type of
>> transmission. Maybe in the first scene for some reason they can't operate
>> the shift stick - they don't know how, it's stuck, or they have some sort
>> of physical limitation.
>>
>
> Thank you for spotting this inconsistency - we spun around on that a few
> times. Thinking of it, I'm not sure the transmission idea works very well
> either - the issue needs to be inherent to the car rather than the driver.
> Maybe "image you couldn't use the car because you can't adjust the seat"?
> This also has the notion of adaptation and personalization of products.
> Let's also discuss this one further.


That does sound more on target than the transmission.

>


>
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> Activity Lead, WAI International Program Office
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>



-- 
susan hewitt
senior accessibility specialist
deque systems | 703-623-8717