- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:34:44 +0200
- To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Cc: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shawn, On 16/09/2019 17:24, Shawn Henry wrote: > 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!" :-) Would that manager consider themself as "don't know much/anything"? > But really, this is minor, and I'm OK with "new to" if you want and > others didn't comment on it. :-) I don't feel strongly at all, just weighing out cost versus benefit. > Also note that elsewhere I suggest "not technical" instead of > "non-technical". I feel a bit more strongly about that. :-) Changed. >>>> [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. Same as above -- I don't feel strongly but prefer the simplicity. > (/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. :-) Yup... >>>> [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. Thank you for your thoughtful comments :-) Best, 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 Monday, 16 September 2019 15:34:49 UTC