Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Publication Approval – Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes'

Hi Shawn,

Many thanks for your valuable feedback. Most of your comments have been 
addressed. Please see inline some clarifications:


On 16/10/2019 15:18, Shawn Henry via WBS Mailer wrote:
> Current wording: “Tools can be integrated into different work
> environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system
> (C-M-S), code editor, or your deployment process, such as CD/CI.”
> 
> [ED-med]
> -> Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For example,
> into your web browser, content management system (C-M-S), code editor, or
> development and deployment systems.
> [or … development and deployment tools.
> or … development and deployment processes.]
> 
> Rationale: I was one who had the brainstorm that it might be OK to have
> "deployment and testing process (e.g., CI/CD)". Thinking more about it, I
> think we should not have an unexpanded acronym and it’s not worth all the
> words to write out CICD. I guess I’d be OK with it if we expand it in the
> written transcript.
> 
> [!!] If we do leave it:
> s|CD/CI|C-I-C-D for the verbal script and CI/CD for the written
> transcript.
> 
> [ED-low] Minor: I think can leave “code editor” out to make it
> shorter.

Changed to:

- "Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For 
example, into your web browser, content management system (C-M-S), and 
your development and deployment tools."


> Current: “For some checks it is easier to download an extension for your
> browser.”
> 
> [ED-med] ->
> Some checks are easier if you have an extension for your browser.

Changed to:

- "Some checks are easier using an extension for your browser."


> Current: “However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just
> cannot be automated and require your input.”
> 
> [ED-low]
> -> something like:
> “However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just cannot be
> automated and require people with accessibility knowledge to evaluate.
> 
> Rationale: It is highly likely that many of the listeners of this video
> will not have the knowledge to do evaluations, so “your input”
> doesn’t work.

Some tools help you evaluate some aspects without requiring too much 
knowledge. I'm concerned this may seem too scary and off-putting.

- "However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just cannot 
be automated and require manual intervention."

Note: Using "manual intervention" rather than "human intervention" to 
avoid people wondering about non-human intervention (past comments).


> Current: “Also avoid relying too much on what tools say over addressing
> the real-life experience of your website users.”
> 
> [ED-low]
> -> “… the real-life experiences of website users.” or
> -> “… the real-life experiences of your potential website users.”
> 
> Rationale: “Our website doesn’t have any users with disabilities.”
> 
> (“it's not like we have any disabled users anyway. I looked at the server
> logs, I should know.” https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/personas#primary
> :-)

Changed prior sequence to:

- "Yet be aware that tools can, in some cases, provide inaccurate 
results too."

And this sequence to:

- "So avoid relying too much on what tools say over addressing the 
real-life experience of website users."

Note: I personally prefer "your users" to counter exactly that wrong 
argument (rather than to not address it) but letting it go for now.


> fyi: I really like some of these edits. Some I actually prefer the previous
> wording. Yet minor so It didn't comment. :-)

Please do share! Now or forever hold your peace... ;-)


Thanks,
   Shadi

-- 
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 Thursday, 17 October 2019 10:03:45 UTC