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

Hi Shadi,

Thanks so much for the feedback on my comments. I completely agree - simplicity is best, especially as the content I commented on is the voiceover in the video.

Conducting easy checks or doing some sort of assessment I have felt is educational about how websites are perceived by different people, I think that’s what I was getting at with my other comment.

Thanks again. Hope to speak to you soon.
Jenn

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 6:03:52 AM
To: Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com>
Cc: wai-eo-editors@w3.org <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Publication Approval – Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes'

Hi Jennifer,

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


On 16/10/2019 22:45, Jennifer Chadwick via WBS Mailer wrote:
> * location: Video 2: Preliminary Evaluation (~1.5 minutes). Sequence 2,
> Time 3-10
> * current wording: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not
> technical, you can check some aspects of accessibility yourself.
> * suggested revision: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not
> technical, you can check some aspects of accessibility yourself.  The tests
> can help you understand how people use the web and the adaptive strategies
> they use and become more familiar with assistive technology.

Not sure that these checks, eg. checking page title or alt-attribute,
teach you much about how people use the Web and adaptive strategies.
Happy to discuss further but note that our upcoming set of videos in
2020 will focus on exactly that topic: how people use the Web and ATs!


> *location: Video 3: Selecting and Using Tools (~2 minutes). Sequence 9.
> Time 57-60.
> * current wording: Be aware that tools can provide inaccurate results.
> * suggested revision: Be aware that tools can provide inaccurate results.
> This is because the check in the tool is written on code that might meet
> requirements, but might not match exactly how you have coded your site.  A
> manual inspection may be necessary to validate that your code is also
> accessible and conforms to specific accessibility standards, if in a
> different way.


Changed this sequence to:

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

And the following one to:

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

We are trying to keep this short rather than explain why there are some
inaccuracies in some of the tools in specific situations etc etc etc :-)


> An excellent resource! I'm very excited.


Thanks,
   Shadi

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2Fshadi%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7C620b1c0c99c740e62a6808d752e9542c%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637069034440750665&amp;sdata=qCh96szMIwu%2FBM4bPV%2Fb5CLz75xjJJ0PO8eGmE5Cw%2Bs%3D&amp;reserved=0
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)