Re: [wbs] response to 'Scripts for Evaluation Intro Videos'

On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:04, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> Many thanks for your comments on the video scripts! I'm processing the 
> comments and have a few questions for you:
>
>
> On 27/08/2019 10:48, Eric Eggert via WBS Mailer wrote:
>> I think this video is too long and introduces too many resources.
>
> This was in relation to the first (overview) video. Which resources 
> would you suggest excluding from this video?
>
>
>>> Illustrations of "users"/"people" appear (do not need to be detailed 
>>> or
>> animated); *no* representations of "disability" or such - just of 
>> users
>> (see sequence 21 of video 1)
>>
>> STRONGLY OBJECT to not representing disabilities when talking about 
>> users.
>> We need not to point out disabilities specifics here, but whenever we 
>> refer
>> to users we must make sure to be representative.
>>
>> When I think of “just users”, I cannot separate PwD from people 
>> without
>> disabilities. They are all “just users”.
>
> To clarify, I'm worried about how people with disabilities would be 
> depicted -- wheelchair or cane? What about non-visible disabilities? 
> Would such representation reinforce the thought that is work is for 
> disabled people only? My suggestion is to try and not differentiate 
> between disabled and non-disabled but just depict "end-users". These 
> include people of different abilities, race, age, etc. Remember that 
> these will all be illustrations anyway, rather than actual people.
>
> Curious about your thoughts after this clarification.

Hm, the initial says “*no* representations of "disability" or such” 
but now you say “My suggestion is to try and not differentiate between 
disabled and non-disabled but just depict "end-users". These include 
people of different abilities, race, age, etc.”

If that means disabilities are represented, then I’m ok with it.

>
>
>> See video 1, also there seems to be a lot of repetition from video 1. 
>> I’d
>> like to have this more stand alone.
>
> This seems a little contradictory. To make each video stand-alone 
> there needs to be some level of (slight) repetition. Unless we avoid 
> an intro (overview) video altogether?

Hard to see where my comment relates to due to truncation, I think the 
videos should be distinctive. I felt like they were covering largely the 
same ground with some changes in the details.

>> Could we not throw shade like that? [...]
> [...]
>> This is throwing experts under the bus [...]
>
> I do not mean to throw shade or throw anyone under anything. I'm very 
> happy to consider your comments, also without such pointy statements.

I have tried to convey the impression I got as directly as possible, and 
I had those “pointy” reactions at those points in the scripts.

I did not want to imply that both points were meant intentional, but 
that the phrasing has a negative impact.

Eric

>
>
> Many 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)



--

Eric Eggert
Web Accessibility Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)