- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:02:37 +0200
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shadi, No, I cannot say. Please go ahead with it. I consider all my comments addressed. 👋 Eric Sent from my iPad > On 8. Oct 2019, at 12:00, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > I want to make sure your comments are adequately addressed, especially given the time you invested in providing them. Do you know by when you could get to do a re-review of the most critical comments at least? > > Thanks, > Shadi > > >> On 08/10/2019 11:33, Eric Eggert wrote: >> Hi Shadi, >> Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I cannot re-review the video scripts. I see that some of my comments have not been addressed, with reasoning. Wether I agree with the reasoning or not, I don’t want the videos to be held up further. I still feel strongly about the “deployment” comment I replied to earlier. >> 👋 Eric >>>> On 7. Oct 2019, at 21:36, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> Many thanks for your extensive and thoughtful comments. I address most in an update, and would appreciate any further thoughts you may have: >>> - https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Video-Based_Resources/Evaluation_Introduction >>> >>> Below are some more explanations on how your comments were addressed. I'm happy to bring back any comments for broader group discussion. >>> >>> >>>> On 30/09/2019 15:33, Eric Eggert via WBS Mailer wrote: >>>> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval of >>>> Scripts for Evaluation Videos' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for >>>> Eric Eggert. >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------- >>>>> Review level >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> * [x] I reviewed it thoroughly. >>>> * [ ] I skimmed it. >>>> * [ ] I didn't get to it. (Please do answer the next question, too!) >>>> Comments: >>>> I reviewed mostly the spoken audio. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------- >>>>> Comments and approval >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> * [ ] I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos as they are >>>> * [ ] I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos; please consider the >>>> comments below for editors' discretion. >>>> * [ ] I approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos only with the changes >>>> in the comments below. >>>> * [x] I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of the >>>> comments below. >>>> * [ ] I abstain (not vote) and accept the decisions of the Working Group >>>> Comments: >>>> All in all, I cannot approve all five videos (and this is the only option I >>>> have here), mostly due to the imho missed objective in video 5 and several >>>> issues across the other videos. If I could decide per video, I would say: >>>> * Video 1: I approve this script; please consider the comments below for >>>> editors' discretion. >>>> * Video 2: I approve this script only with the changes in the comments >>>> below. (Esp. Video 2/Issue 6) >>>> * Video 3: I approve this script only with the changes in the comments >>>> below. (Esp. Video 3/Issues 7 & 8) >>>> * Video 4: I approve this script only with the changes in the comments >>>> below. (Esp. Video 4/Issue 5) >>>> * Video 5: I do not approve these Scripts for Evaluation Videos, because of >>>> the comments below. (Needs to check changed objective with EO.) >>> >>> The issue with Video 5 was addressed during the call on 4th October. >>> >>> >>>> This is a long list of comments and sharing it as a long list has its >>>> issues but it is the only way I see that is available to me. >>>> I use markdown markup to add some sort of structure to the text. Feel free >>>> to reach out if you need an HTML variant of it. >>>> ## Video 1 >>>> ### Issue 1 >>>> * level: ED-low >>>> * location: 2 >>>> * current wording: Evaluation is an essential part of ensuring that your >>>> websites and applications meet accessibility requirements. >>>> * suggested revision: Evaluation is essential to make sure that your >>>> websites and applications meet accessibility requirements. >>>> * rationale: Shorter words are easier to understand. The opening has a lot >>>> of complicated words that makes it hard for watchers to get into. >>> >>> Changed to: "Evaluation helps you ensure that your websites and applications meet accessibility requirements." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 2 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 6 >>>> * Current Wording: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not >>>> technical, there are several checks you can do to get a rough idea of the >>>> accessibility. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not >>>> technical, these checks give you a rough idea of the accessibility of a >>>> product. >>>> * Rationale: simpler language, just “the accessibility” sounds uncommon >>>> to end the sentence with >>> >>> Changed to: "Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical, these checks give you a rough idea of the accessibility of any web page." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 3 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: 8 >>>> * Current Wording: Make sure to read the resource "Selecting Web >>>> Accessibility Evaluation Tools", which provides guidance on what tools can >>>> and cannot do. >>>> * Suggested Revision: "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" >>>> provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do. >>>> * Rationale: Shortening, does not sound as “commanding”, avoids “the >>>> resource” to avoid jargon >>> >>> Changed to: ""Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" explains what tools can and cannot do." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 4 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 10 >>>> * Current Wording: The accompanying "WCAG-EM Report Tool" allows you to >>>> record the findings as you follow the methodology. >>>> * Suggested Revision: The "WCAG-EM Report Tool" lets you to record the >>>> findings as you follow the methodology. >>>> * Rationale: The name hints at “accompanying” which is also a dificult >>>> word. “Lets” instead of “allows” to make it a tiny bit more clear >>>> that it is not the only thing to do a WCAG-EM evaluation with. >>> >>> Changed to : "The "WCAG-EM Report Tool" helps you record the findings as you follow the methodology." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 5 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 13 >>>> * Current Wording: With these resources, you can learn how to check your >>>> website for accessibility and prioritize the issues you need to address >>>> first. >>>> * Suggested Revision: With all those resources, you can learn how to check >>>> your website for accessibility and prioritize the issues you need to >>>> address first. >>>> * Rationale: “these” seems to only refer to the last two resources, in >>>> reality we refer to all resources. I think we can make that more clear in >>>> text. >>> >>> I see your point but the phrase "all those" sounds a little daunting to me. We could say "with this collection of resources" but that may be too many words for too little effect? >>> >>> >>>> ## Video 2 >>>> ### Issue 1 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: overall >>>> * Current Wording: Repeats “checks” a lot! >>>> * Suggested Revision: Should not use checks so often. >>>> * Rationale: It’s really distracting to have that repetition. Some >>>> repetition is good but we need some variance. >>> >>> Several sequences in this video were moved around to address this and other comments. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 2 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 3 >>>> * Current Wording: For example, a web page from your own website, from your >>>> competitor, or from vendors you might want to work with. >>>> * Suggested Revision: removal >>>> * Rationale: This feels like a very disjointed list that also is not a real >>>> sentence. I don't think it warrants 8 seconds of time that was already said >>>> in the scene before. Also why should I want to check my competitiors >>>> website? >>> >>> This was requested in other comments. This sequence has been moved to later in the video, so may be less jolting there. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 3 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 4 >>>> * Current Wording: The resource "Easy Checks - A First Review of Web >>>> Accessibility" gives you step-by-step guidance on how to check some aspects >>>> of accessibility. >>>> * Suggested Revision: "Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility" >>>> gives you step-by-step guidance on how to check some aspects of >>>> accessibility. >>>> * Rationale: I don't think “the resource” adds to the content of the >>>> video. >>> >>> Changed to: ""Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility" gives you step-by-step instructions to get a rough idea of the accessibility of any web page." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 4 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: 5 >>>> * Current Wording: Some checks are as simple as looking at the title of the >>>> web pages displayed in the browser window. >>>> * Suggested Revision: N/A >>>> * Rationale: This specific check has certain considerations. Do we really >>>> think it is simple? >>> >>> There are definitely edge cases and situations that are difficult to judge but I would consider this as relatively easy to learn. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 5 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: 6 >>>> * Current Wording: You can do most of the checks with any web browser. For >>>> some checks it is easier to download an extension for your browser. >>>> * Suggested Revision: While you can do most checks with any web browser, >>>> sometimes it is easier to use a browser extension. >>>> * Rationale: Simpler sentence. I wonder how common browser extensions are >>>> that we can use them without explanation. >>> >>> This changes the meaning. It also makes the sentence more complex. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 6 >>>> * Level: !! Important to be addressed >>>> * Location: 7 >>>> * Current Wording: You do not need to do all checks. Sometimes doing only a >>>> few checks can still give you a general idea of the accessibility. >>>> * Suggested Revision: remove or reword >>>> * Rationale: If I was someone with little knowledge of accessibility I >>>> would not know what is going on here. What is the level I should test, how >>>> do I know that the accessibility is good? I don’t think it adds anything >>>> to the video. >>> >>> Revised approach across several sequences, including this one. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 7 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 8 >>>> * Current Wording: Just remember that even if you carry out all easy >>>> checks, it is not an evaluation of all accessibility aspects. More testing >>>> is needed for a definitive and comprehensive evaluation. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Even if you do all easy checks, it is not an >>>> evaluation of all accessibility aspects. More testing is needed for a >>>> definitive and comprehensive evaluation. >>>> * Rationale: Just remember that in juxtaposition with the scene before does >>>> not make a lot of sense. Do instead of carry out because of simplicity. >>> >>> Revised approach across several sequences, including this one. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 8 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: 9 >>>> * Current Wording: With Easy Checks, you can get started right away doing >>>> some accessibility checks. >>>> * Suggested Revision: With Easy Checks, you can eyeball some accessibility >>>> right away. >>>> * Rationale: This sounds like one would have the power to do quick checks >>>> immediately but it is significant time to learn easy checks, depending on >>>> the background. (Not feeling strong for my variant which I don’t like but >>>> did not come up with something much better.) >>> >>> Changed to: "Start your accessibility journey right now by doing some Easy Checks." >>> >>> >>>> ## Video 3 >>>> ### Issue 1 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: 2 >>>> * Current Wording: Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs >>>> or online services that help you identify accessibility barriers. >>>> * Suggested Revision: (Maybe) Apps, programs, and online services can help >>>> to identify accessibility barriers. >>>> * Rationale: This has a super complex lead, reapeating web accessibility >>>> evaluation tools from scene 1 immediately. It’s hard to get into the >>>> video this way. >>> >>> Changed to: "There are software programs and online services to help you identify accessibility barriers." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 2 >>>> * Level: ED-medium >>>> * Location: 3 >>>> * Current Wording: Tools can save you lots of time and effort on >>>> evaluation. And tools can help avoid creating new accessibility barriers. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Such evaluation tools can save you lots of time and >>>> effort and tcan help avoiding new accessibility barriers. >>>> * Rationale: A bit more succinct, adding evaluation here to be able to >>>> remove it from scene 2. The word “tools" is in almost every scene which >>>> feels tiring. >>> >>> Changed to: "They can save you lots of time and effort on evaluation, and can help you avoid creating new accessibility barriers." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 3 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 4 >>>> * Current Wording: However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility >>>> checks just cannot be automated and require input from people. >>>> * Suggested Revision: However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility >>>> tests cannot be automated and require input from manual testers. >>>> * Rationale: Replacing checks with tests for differentiation with Easy >>>> Checks. I don’t like “input from people”. I think it should be >>>> “input from manual testers” but that sounds jargony. >>> >>> Changed to: "However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just cannot be automated and require your input." >>> >>> Note: I think that using "checks" and "tests" seemingly interchangeably but without any explanation/definition for viewers is potentially more confusing than helpful. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 4 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 5 >>>> * Current Wording: Some tools provide guidance to help you do the checks >>>> that cannot be automated. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Some guide you through the tests that cannot be >>>> automated. >>>> * Rationale: Much simpler, checks->tests. >>> >>> Changed to: "Some tools guide you through the checks that cannot be automated." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 5 >>>> * Level: ED-ultralow >>>> * Location: 6 >>>> * Current Wording: Some tools check one page at a time, while others can >>>> scan an entire website. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Some tools check one screen at a time, while others >>>> can scan an entire website. >>>> * Rationale: Many project managers/designers/developers do not think in >>>> pages anymore. >>> >>> Most tools and most of our resources still think in pages, though. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 6 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 7 >>>> * Current Wording: Tools can be integrated into different work >>>> environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system >>>> - CMS, code editor, or JavaScript framework. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Tools can be integrated into different work >>>> environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system >>>> - CMS, code editor, or your deploy process. >>>> * Rationale: This misses continuous integration methods that are available, >>>> I am unsure how one would build it into the JavaScrip framework. You can >>>> surely add it to the testing suite for your JavaScript framework, but that >>>> rings differently to me. >>> >>> I think the phrase "deploy process" is too jargony. Changed to "your JavaScript" (ie. dropped "framework"), which should be more accurate. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 7 >>>> * Level: !! must be addressed >>>> * Location: 9 & 10 >>>> * Current Wording: Be aware that tools can provide inaccurate results. >>>> * Suggested Revision: >>>> * Rationale: I think this scene needs more detail to be really helpful to >>>> watchers. Provide examples on whent the result is ambiguous. >>> >>> This would potentially require several sequences to introduce the concepts of false positives, false negatives, wrong assumptions, and many other causes. We do not go into that level of detail for most aspects in all 5 videos. I would leave that to the actual resources rather than try to explain in the video. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 8 >>>> * Level: !! must be addressed >>>> * Location: 10 >>>> * Current Wording: Also avoid relying too much on what tools say over >>>> addressing the real-life experience of website users. >>>> * Suggested Revision: >>>> * Rationale: If the tools test for WCAG, they should align with the >>>> “real-life experience” of website users. Also, I have heard the >>>> argument “our users like it better” to push back against accessibility >>>> evaluation often. This either needs much more context and examples or >>>> should be removed. >>> >>> This is meant in conjunction with the previous sequence -- often tools don't test properly for WCAG, so that they cannot be fully trusted. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 9 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 11 >>>> * Current Wording: The resource "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation >>>> Tools" provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do, and what to look >>>> for in tools to meet your needs. >>>> * Suggested Revision: "Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" >>>> provides guidance on what tools can and cannot do, and what to look for in >>>> tools to meet your needs. >>>> * Rationale: “The resource” is not needed. >>> >>> Changed to: ""Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools" explains what tools can and cannot do, and what to look for in tools that meet your needs." >>> >>> >>>> ## Video 4 >>>> ### Issue 1 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 2 >>>> * Current Wording: Conformance evaluation determines how well your content >>>> meets specific accessibility standards, such as the "W3C Web Content >>>> Accessibility Guidelines", or short "WCAG". >>>> * Suggested Revision: Conformance evaluations determine how products meet >>>> industry standards. For the accessibility of web content, conformance is >>>> tested against the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines", or short >>>> "WCAG". >>>> * Rationale: It says “such as WCAG”, but WCAG is the only resource in >>>> the Conformance Evaluation overview page which this video introduces. The >>>> first sentence also talks about content which is the domain of WCAG, so I >>>> don’t know how the “such as” fits in. >>> >>> It could be EN 301 549, BITV, RGAA, BBC Guidelines, ... >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 2 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 3 & 4 >>>> * Current Wording: Often conformance evaluation is done: as a final check >>>> before releasing a product; in order to provide information to potential >>>> purchasers of your product; to regularly monitor the accessibility of your >>>> website; before procuring a product; and when getting started with >>>> implementing accessibility, to get a list of accessibility issues that you >>>> need to address. >>>> * Suggested Revision: (Split in multiple scenes) >>>> * They are often the final check before releasing a product. >>>> * Sometimes evaluations are used to demonstrate accessibility to >>>> potential buyers of the product. >>>> * They can also be useful for monitoring the quality of your website or >>>> app. >>>> * When you buy a product, a comprehensive evaluation can help with your >>>> buying decision. >>>> * If you are starting to implement accessibility, an evaluation can help >>>> to find the most pressing issues. >>>> * Rationale: I think this is too long of a list to address with one scene. >>>> It is hard to follow. >>> >>> I feel this makes it unnecessarily long and wordy. Previous comments, including from you, requested shortening and using lists. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 3 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 6 >>>> * Current Wording: You'll probably also want to use evaluation tools to be >>>> more efficient. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Evaluations can be done with the help of automatic >>>> tools. [or something] >>>> * Rationale: Here’s a flipped perspective. First it only talks about what >>>> conf eval is and what people who do it need. Here it’s suddenly you who >>>> is doing the evaluation. >>> >>> Good point! Changed several sequences to use more active language, which should now match this sequence too. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 4 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 7 >>>> * Current Wording: The "W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation >>>> Methodology", or short "WCAG-EM" helps you structure your evaluation >>>> process. >>>> * Suggested Revision: The "W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation >>>> Methodology", or short "WCAG-EM" provides a structure for the evaluation >>>> process. >>>> * Rationale: Isn’t WCAG-EM the structure? >>> >>> Changed to: "The "W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology", or "WCAG-EM" for short, provides a structure for your evaluation process." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 5 >>>> * Level: ED-high to !! >>>> * Location: 8 >>>> * Current Wording: It describes a process to: 1. define the scope of your >>>> evaluation; 2. explore your website assets; 3. select a representative >>>> sample of web pages from your website; 4. evaluate the selected sample; 5. >>>> and report your evaluation findings. >>>> * Suggested Revision: N/A >>>> * Rationale: Those are super complicated concepts if you are not familiar >>>> with them. In a conference talk every aspect would warrant at least one >>>> slide with explanation and an example. >>> >>> These concepts are explained in the resource. We agreed that the purpose of the videos is to primarily introduce the resources. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 6 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 10 >>>> * Current Wording: One point to note here: WCAG-EM recommends involving >>>> real users with disability during evaluation, to help ensure you are >>>> addressing the real-life experience of website users. >>>> * Suggested Revision: WCAG-EM recommends involving real users with >>>> disability during evaluation, to help ensure you are addressing the >>>> real-life experience of website users. >>>> * Rationale: The “point to note here” is not needed. You are producing >>>> points to note in every scene :-D >>> >>> Changed to: "WCAG-EM also recommends involving real users with disabilities during evaluation, to help you address the real-life experience of your website users." and moved to related sequences. >>> >>> >>>> ## Video 5 >>>> ### Issue 0 >>>> This feels like a missed opportunity, the video basically says “involving >>>> users is a good thing, read everythign about it here:” but does not >>>> provide actual information on how to do it. >>>> The video is supposed to be introducing “Involving in Evaluation” >>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/ but never actually >>>> really refers back to the document. How to select users for evaluation, how >>>> to analyze accessibility issues. The video mostly talks about involving >>>> users in projects. >>>> I’m OK with this one video covering both resources, or the bigger >>>> picture, but I don’t think that the objective, introducing “Involving >>>> in Evaluation”, is met with this video. >>> >>> Objective changed, as agreed during the EO call of 4th October. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 1 >>>> * Level: ED-high to !! >>>> * Location: 3 >>>> * Current Wording: Yet projects often approach accessibility just as a >>>> checklist to meet accessibility standards. This risks missing the real >>>> purpose of accessibility - the user experience. >>>> * Suggested Revision: Yet, many approach it as a checklist to meet the >>>> standards. This risks missing the real purpose of accessibility: removing >>>> barriers for people with disabilities to participate. >>>> * Rationale: Projects cannot approach anything. People do :-D It feels >>>> wrong to say UX is the real purpose of accessibility. As that was already >>>> outlined in scene 2, I would remove that sentence or rewrite it along the >>>> lines above. >>> >>> Changed to: "Unfortunately many approach accessibility just as a checklist to meet the standards. This risks missing the real purpose of accessibility - the user experience." >>> >>> Saying "user experience" is short for "equivalent user experience" or such. I'm not sure it is worth adding that here. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 2 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 4–7 >>>> * Current Wording: >>>> * Suggested Revision: >>>> * Rationale: This is again a long list (49 seconds). It will be almost >>>> impossible to have the attention of the watcher for so long. Especially as >>>> we seem to be resorting to just text slides for it, visually. It would be >>>> good to break it up more distinctly and use more direct language. It would >>>> be good if it was shorter. >>> >>> Minor edits have been made to make the sentences more succinct. I tried rephrasing them but it seems to add too much unnecessary wordiness and clutter. I feel the sentences stand alone quite well. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 3 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 4 >>>> * Current Wording: Involving people with disabilities throughout your >>>> design and development process can be a more effective process that yields >>>> better results: designers and developers learn how people with disabilities >>>> use the web, and understand the assistive technologies and adaptive >>>> strategies that they use; >>>> * Suggested Revision: >>>> * Involving people with disabilities during design and development can >>>> result in a more effective process that yields better results. >>>> * Designers and developers learn how people with disabilities use the >>>> web. They understand assistive technologies and adaptive strategies that >>>> they use. >>>> * Rationale: Simpler wording. Consider doing two scenes. Would be good with >>>> examples for “assistive technologies” and “adaptive strategies” as >>>> those are jargon-y terms. >>> >>> Changed to: "Involving people with disabilities throughout your design and development process can be a more effective and yield better results" and "designers and developers learn how people with disabilities use the web, and understand assistive technologies and adaptive strategies they use". >>> >>> Note: coming up with visuals for "assistive technology and adaptive strategies" is extremely difficult. These terms are explained in the resource itself. >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 4 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 5 >>>> * Current Wording: the project team is more motivated and energized when >>>> they understand how their work impacts real people's lives; >>>> * Suggested Revision: It motivates the project team when they understand >>>> the ways their work impacts people’s lives on a daily basis. >>>> * Rationale: Is it really more energized? Did you want to say inspired? >>>> (which has certain connotations in this context.) Also motivated and >>>> energized are synonyms, no need to say both. People are usually real. :-) >>> >>> Changed to: "the project team is more motivated when they understand how their work impacts people's lives" >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 5 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 6 >>>> * Current Wording: development is more efficient, and creates innovative >>>> solutions that make your products work better for more people, with and >>>> without disability; >>>> * Suggested Revision: >>>> * Rationale: I don’t think that causation exists. Even if a correlation >>>> exists, the current wording reads too definitive to me. >>> >>> Changed to: "development is more efficient, and your products work better for more people, with and without disability" >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 6 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 7 >>>> * Current Wording: your resulting products are more inclusive and reach >>>> more audience, have higher customer satisfaction, and demonstrate social >>>> responsibility. >>>> * Suggested Revision: When the resulting products are more inclusive, they >>>> can reach a larger audience and a higher customer satisfaction. Involving >>>> people with disabilities demonstrates social responsibility. >>>> * Rationale: Again, the correlation is very weak. “More audience” does >>>> not sound right to me. >>> >>> Changed to: "your resulting products are more inclusive and reach a bigger audience, have higher customer satisfaction, and demonstrate social responsibility." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 7 >>>> * Level: ED-low >>>> * Location: 8 >>>> * Current Wording: The resource "Involving Users in Web Projects for >>>> Better, Easier Accessibility" provides guidance starting in project >>>> planning and throughout the design and development process. >>>> * Suggested Revision: "Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier >>>> Accessibility" provides guidance for project planning and throughout the >>>> design and development process. >>>> * Rationale: Remove “The resource”, remove “starting in” – if we >>>> want to use it, we need to span the time. So if it ended with “and until >>>> launch” that would be OK. So it feels like it starts but does not end, >>>> which is not a good feeling. >>> >>> Changed to: ""Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility" provides guidance on project planning, and throughout the design and development process." >>> >>> >>>> ### Issue 8 >>>> * Level: ED-high >>>> * Location: 9 >>>> * Current Wording: The companion resource "Involving Users in Evaluating >>>> Web Accessibility" provides more specific guidance on evaluation. >>>> * Suggested Revision: "Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" >>>> provides specific guidance when including users in testing. >>>> * Rationale: I don’t know what a “companion resource” is. Do they >>>> belong together so you have to read both? Luckily I think we an get rid of >>>> it altogether. “more guidance” compared to what? >>> >>> Changed to: ""Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" provides more specific guidance on the evaluation stage of the process." >>> >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Shadi >>> >>> >>> >>>>> These answers were last modified on 30 September 2019 at 13:32:36 U.T.C. >>>>> by Eric Eggert >>>>> >>>> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at >>>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/Videos_Eval_Scripts_Approval/ until >>>> 2019-09-30. >>>> Regards, >>>> The Automatic WBS Mailer >>> >>> -- >>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ >>> Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist >>> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>> > > -- > Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ > Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist > Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2019 10:02:44 UTC