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

Hi Shadi,

On 9/16/2019 1:37 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
> 
> 
> On 13/09/2019 17:30, Shawn Henry wrote:
>> Thanks, Shadi!
>>
>> replies below:
>>
>> On 9/12/2019 11:06 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> Hi Shawn,
>>>
>>> Many thanks for your extensive and helpful comments. I addressed most of them in the latest update. Some issues are on the agenda for discussion. Below are some responses to specific comments:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/09/2019 03:27, Shawn Henry via WBS Mailer wrote:
>>> [SNIP]
>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>> Video 1: Evaluation Overview
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> 6: "Even if you are new to web accessibility and non-technical…"
>>>> -> "Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical…"
>>>> Also, I wonder about "new to accessibility"? … so maybe:
>>>> -> "Even if you don't know anything about web accessibility yet and you're
>>>> not technical…"
>>>
>>> I don't like "don't know anything". Hardly anyone coming here would not know anything about accessibility. Do you have other suggestions?
>>
>> Good point. Maybe "don't know much"?
> 
> It would then read "Even if you don't know much about web accessibility and you're non-technical, there are several checks you can do to get a rough idea of the accessibility." -- I can live with that but find it a little long and clunky. What is wrong with "Even if you are new to"?
I'm guessing (only guessing) that there are many people who would consider themselves not "new to accessibility" yet think they don't have the knowledge to evaluate accessibility at all -- and thus are the target audiences for this sentence. For example, I'm thinking of a high-level manager I know. He's known about accessibility for 10+ years, but not done much directly himself (because he's been at management level that long). If you asked him: "Are you new to accessibility", he'd say, "No, I've known about it for years." If you asked him, "Can you check a web page and tell if there are any accessibility problems with it, he'd say, "No, I don't know enough about it." So he's they type of person we want to tell: "Actually, yes you can!" :-)

But really, this is minor, and I'm OK with "new to" if you want and others didn't comment on it. :-)

Also note that elsewhere I suggest "not technical" instead of "non-technical". I feel a bit more strongly about that. :-)

> 
> 
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> 6: "…  get a rough [idea] of how well you are doing."
>>>> -> "…  get a rough [idea] of the accessibility of a web page."
>>>> R: We imagine that people use Easy Checks to check *other* pages besides
>>>> their own.
>>>> Note: You say the in the Easy Checks video. If you want to leave this one
>>>> as is for flow, I'm totally fine with that.
>>>
>>> How about "get a rough idea of the accessibility" only?
>>
>> yup, OK.
>> (that might not be sufficient stand alone -- would need another word after accessibility (e.g.,  the accessibility barriers or the accessibility status or such) -- yet I think fine in context)
> 
> It would actually need to be "some of the accessibility aspects" or such, which I mildly think is unnecessarily long. What do you think?

/me goes back and re-reads <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Video-Based_Resources/Evaluation_Introduction> ...
* "Even if you are new to web accessibility and non-technical, there are several checks you can do to get a rough idea of the accessibility."
* "Sometimes doing only a few checks can still give you a general idea of the accessibility."

It's just feels off to me.
/me asks her local grammar guru to read the sentences... he thinks it's fine.

I guess OK to leave it -- yet please be on the lookout for if anyone else notes it.

(/me had a couple things like that with the recent media review. When only one person noted it, I left it -- but when a second person noted it, I rewrote it. :-)

> 
> 
>>> [SNIP]
>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>> Video 2: Preliminary Evaluation
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> 2: "Even if you are new to web accessibility and non-technical, you can do
>>>> some easy checks to get a rough impression of the accessibility of any web
>>>> page."
>>>> [See comments on Overview video script]
>>>
>>> ACK (keeping a tab on this comment for later edits).
>>>
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> 7: "…can still give you a general idea of how well you are doing."
>>>> -> "…can still give you a general idea of how well a page addresses
>>>> accessibility."
>>>> R: May be doing the checks on a vendor, competitor, or other site/
>>>
>>> Using "of the accessibility", in line with the prior edits.
> 
> (keeping tab on comments on sequences 2 and 7 above)
> 
> 
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> 9: "The first step to accessibility is understanding where you are"
>>>> This not feeling tight For one thing, that assumes checking own website,
>>>> whereas we're saying "webpage from your own website, from your competitor,
>>>> or from vendors you might want to work with." Another point is we usually
>>>> say get a basic understanding of accessibility first (ideally anyway) –
>>>> e.g.,  https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/interim-repairs/ says "If you are
>>>> new to accessibility, it is often helpful to first get a basic
>>>> understanding of accessibility:" True that then it goes into "Identify the
>>>> Issues".
>>>
>>> Changed to: "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away with finding some of the accessibility barriers."
>>
>> good! ... actually:
>> - second "with": "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away finding some of the accessibility barriers."
>> could - "of the": "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away finding some accessibility barriers."
>>
>> hummm..  "finding barriers" is assuming there are barriers, and maybe not good to say that way?
>> maybe: "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away checking if there are some accessibility barriers."
>> perhaps: "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away checking for some accessibility barriers."
>> perhaps: "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away checking some accessibility issues."
> 
> Changed to "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away doing some accessibility checks."
> 
> Wondering if it now needs the second "with" back? Ie. "With Easy Checks, you can get started right away with doing some accessibility checks."?
Definitely not have the second "with".

Thanks for thoughtful considerations of my input.

Best,
~Shawn



> 
> 
> Thanks,
>    Shadi
>

Received on Monday, 16 September 2019 15:25:07 UTC