Thanks for your survey comments

Thanks Judy, I appreciate your time and helpful comments. Here is my
response:

- Title: As I was re-reading this near-final version, I noticed that almost
all of the discussion is about digital accessibility, rather than
accessibility for the built environment, transportation, etc. I'm wondering
if EOWG considered "The Business Case for Digital Accessibility." But fine
as is, if people don't want to revisit that at this time.

SR: Good suggestion, done!

- For the "Note" at the bottom of the Summary, I suggest using "...include
web and mobile applications, and other digital technologies" which would
make it more consistent with "web and mobile applications" used elsewhere
in WAI materials.

SR: Done

- Copyedit suggestion at "to the legal and equity aspects, while..." (long,
and hard to parse otherwise)

SR: Changed as follows, please advise if it meets the simplification goal:
"...different aspects will be relevant depending on the organizational
focus and purpose. For example, government agencies may be strongly
motivated by legal and equity aspects. Commercial businesses may be more
persuaded by innovation and market expansion opportunities. Educational and
nonprofit businesses may be especially drawn to brand enhancement. It is
most likely your business will respond to a mix of motivating factors as
you consider implementing an integrated accessibility program.

- Spacing bug after benefits in Paul Smyth's quote
SR: Created GitHub issue, assigned to Eric

- First three "Drive Innovation" bulleted phrases seem hard to parse, and
"Interaction Design" maybe should be "Interactive Design"

SR: I applied edits to the first two bullets but do not see the complexity
in the third one. Suggestion welcome.  Currently reads as follows:
-   Accessible design thinking provides varied and flexible ways for users
to interact with websites and applications, options that are useful for
people with and without disabilities.

-   Design of user interaction considers experiences other than screens
when accessibility is a consideration. The result is interaction that is
more human-centered, natural, and contextual.

-   Accessibility is closely related to general usability – both aim to
define and deliver a more intuitive user experience.

- Please don't use "blind patients" phrasing -- unnecessary medicalization
SR: They were in fact patients in a medical study. However I changed it to
"participants."

- Phrasing about Apple and Google being innovators -- wondering if this
could be tweaked so as to avoid sounding as though others aren't
SR: Changed to "The following case studies from two large technology
companies provide useful examples for companies of all sizes.

- Copyedit - I think "As well" isn't typically used at the beginning of
sentences (could just use "also")
SR: Several have remarked on this but since it was submitted by the Apple
accessibility lead. I hesitate to edit without her permission. I have asked
for it and will make the change in the meantime with the understanding that
if she objects to this or any of the following, I may have to change back
or remove entirely. (unlikely IMO)

- Phrasing -- also "would have on the blind" ...on people who are blind?
Also, later, "the deaf" -- we try to avoid sounding like disabilities are
monolithic groups
SR: Again, her phrase but I changed it to "their blind customers" and
"auto-captioning using machine learning has been problematic for the main
target population of deaf users..."

- "Apple led the charge in striving" -- sounds less like vendor-neutral
text than most of the rest of the document
SR: I am not comfortable changing this without her permission since it is
part of the reason they agreed and it is not a view that is significantly
challenged - Apple made real accessibility commitments before either
MicroSoft or Google as their overwhelmingly wide adoption by the community
illustrates.

- Barclay's 2nd quote needs quote attribution
SR: Done

- For the Forrester quote, maybe indicate "commissioned by Microsoft"
SR: That was the original but Shawn asked me to remove it, y'all arm
wrestle or something and let me know :)

- For UN CRPD mention, note that that there is more than one relevant
reference -- you can reference Articles 9 and 21
SR: Happy to, please let me know more specifically how/where you would like
to see those referenced. Thanks

- Public use of the Internet -- I think is much more than 25 years old. Do
you mean public use of the Web?
SR: Good point, yes!

These were terrifically helpful comments Judy. Thank you!

Best,
Sharron


-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*