- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 10:18:39 +0200
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: "EO Editors" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shadi, On 3 Sep 2019, at 7:55, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > Hi Eric, > > > On 02/09/2019 18:48, Eric Eggert wrote: >> 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? > > Not sure if you missed my question to you? I did indeed miss this question but I also don’t have a good answer at this point in time. It just felt it overwhelming, especially with our long complicated names and hard to understand verbiage, especially if you are coming to accessibility for the first time. (I would need to go back and have a closer look to make specific suggestions, but I’m unable to do so time-wise.) > > >> 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. > > The suggestion is to not attempt to depict age, race, ability etc. but > only depict "users". I'm thinking of something like this illustration, > which doesn't allude to any particular person: > - > https://cdn4.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/86/93/classic-3d-board-game-figures-graphics-vector-22798693.jpg I’m personally not a big proponent of such abstract depictions of people as it makes it less relatable, but I also don’t object to this approach in general. > > >> 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. > > Here are the objectives for each video: > - > https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Video-Based_Resources/Evaluation_Introduction#Objectives > > Video 1 is an overview, and the others go into more detail about more > specific aspects introduced in Video 1. This means there will be some > level of repetition between Video 1 and the other videos, unless we > decide to change the approach (for example, to remove Video 1). I’ll leave that up to you. I just tried to convey my first impression and maybe when it is in a real video it appears to be less repeating. Maybe we could find another angle to tackle stuff that needs to be repeated so it does not feel the same. 👋 Eric > > >> 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. > > Thank you, I will try to address your comments. > > > Thanks, > Shadi > > >> 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) >> > > -- > 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)
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2019 08:18:43 UTC