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

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