Re: Business Case comments

Hello Shawn and Sharron,

I have several reactions to your responses.

Do you think it is better to create issues on Github and discuss them 
there or shall I reply to your mails?

I will try to do this later today or tomorrow.

Best

Sylvie

Access42   

*Sylvie DUCHATEAU*
Experte accessibilité numérique
09 72 45 06 14 — 06 62 33 68 12

Expertise et formation en accessibilité numérique

Site web <https://access42.net/> — Twitter 
<https://twitter.com/access42net> — LinkedIn 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/access42> — Newsletter 
<http://eepurl.com/dgHY2b>

Organisme de formation référencé dans le Datadock

Le 10/10/2018 à 22:25, Shawn Henry a écrit :
> Thanks for the review and comments, Sylvie. Comments on first to are 
> below preceded with "Shawn's thoughts:"
>
> You wrote:
> 1. Regarding case studies, the only examples are Apple and Google. 
> Even if I understand the arguments, it may happen that some people 
> will say: you only mention big companies who have the means to provide 
> those services. Unfortunately, I cannot think of other good examples. 
> May be it could help to have an introduction sentence explaining why 
> the two giants were chosen for the case study.
>
> Shawn's thoughts: Good point about the potential misunderstanding that 
> only big companies have means to address accessibility. We should keep 
> on the lookout for ways to address that -- for example, specifically 
> look for case studies, quotes, or other examples of small 
> organizations. (Sharron, do you want to record that somewhere? 
> possibly a GitHub issue that we leave open just to help us remember 
> it?) The reason the two giants were chosen was basically because that 
> is all the info we could gather. I don't think there is a smooth way 
> to say that.
>
> Sharron says: There are actually several case studies, including 
> Barclay's Bank, Winn-Dixie grocery store, and the NPR radio show "This 
> American Life."  However, in the innovation section those are the two. 
> I therefore added this leading sentence:
>
> "Tech giants Apple and Google are recognized as leading innovators. 
> Their development practices demonstrate the value of accessible design 
> thinking."
>
> Let me know if that is OK.
>
> Shawn's thoughts: I think including "Tech giants" emphases the issue 
> that was Sylvie's concern even more. Also, we shouldn't say "are 
> recognized as leading innovators", given the vendor-neutrality issues. 
> So I think just go back to how you had it before. "Apple development 
> practice is another demonstration of how accessibility can drive 
> innovation."
>
>
> 2. In the case study on Google, I would be cautious with the last 
> bullet: "auto-captioning for the deaf using machine learning is now 
> being turned to broader applications". Many deaf and hard of hearing 
> people complain that auto-captioning is a catastrophe. Sometimes it 
> displays the contrary of what the person said. In a video, auto 
> captioning transcribed the noise of the white cane of a blind person 
> as applause. So I am not sure that auto-captioning is a good argument.
>
> Sharron says: I added this to the last bullet: "auto-captioning for 
> the deaf using machine learning was problematic at first and as it has 
> been steadily improving, is now being turned to broader applications"
>
> Shawn's thoughts: Unfortunately I don't think that takes care of the 
> issue. auto-captioning is still far from an acceptable solution. Some 
> brainstorms on how to address it:
> * delete the whole bullet.
> * "auto-captioning using machine learning that can be used as a first 
> step to generating effective captions for people who are deaf is now 
> being turned to broader applications"
>
> Best,
> ~Shawn