Re: [wbs] response to 'WCAG Video Scripts - Thorough Review 2'

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for your thorough review and thoughtful comments! Please 
find some responses inline:


On 03/06/2021 15:03, Chris Loiselle via WBS Mailer wrote:
>> ---------------------------------
>> (Updated) Draft Script 1.3.1 "Info and Relationships"
>>
>> ----
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.1 "Info and
>> Relationships" (Nearby: previous version and changes made)
>> For each of your comments, please clearly indicate:
>>   * Location: eg. "SC 1.2.2 - Scene 2"
>>     * Priority: eg. "[e]" for editorial  or "[i]" for important
>>     * Current wording:
>>     * Suggested revision:
>>     * Rationale:
>>
>>
> 
>   * [ ] I am comfortable with this script as it currently is (no changes
> suggested)
>   * [x] Please consider my comments raised in GitHub or in the comments
> field below (for editors' discretion)
>   * [ ] I abstain from commenting and accept the decisions of the Working
> Group
> Comments:
> 1) Should blind be capitalized to read as "Blind"?

The WAI Style Guide [1] does not define this as one of the words to be 
capitalized and also most WAI resources do not seem to do that.

[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style


> 2) What is meant by page structures? Elements on the page, interactive
> areas of page?
> 3) Would the phrasing content areas vs. page structures be a better
> description of parts of the page? How do we know that the heading
> underneath the heading is obviously a sub heading?

The full sentence reads:
  - "Ilya's screen reader announces page structures, such as headings, 
lists, links, and table cells."

This is also the term used in the WAI Tutorials:
  - https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/page-structure/


> 4) Scene 5 should be written to say that navigating by heading only works,
> rather than "yet this only works". Unsure of what the visual represents if
> that is not explained to the audio based user / consumer of the video. Are
> they being provided with information that the text / code changes from
> unstructured to structured?

This and other parts of the script were further edited, to provide more 
clarity. Here you can find the changes made to this script:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/pull/54/files

Feel free to comment if these changes do not address your concerns.


>> ---------------------------------
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.3 "Sensory
>> Characteristics"
>>
>> ----
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.3 "Sensory
>> Characteristics" (Nearby: previous version and changes made)
>> For each of your comments, please clearly indicate:
>>   * Location: eg. "SC 1.2.2 - Scene 2"
>>     * Priority: eg. "[e]" for editorial  or "[i]" for important
>>     * Current wording:
>>     * Suggested revision:
>>     * Rationale:
>>
>>
> 
>   * [ ] I am comfortable with this script as it currently is (no changes
> suggested)
>   * [x] Please consider my comments raised in GitHub or in the comments
> field below (for editors' discretion)
>   * [ ] I abstain from commenting and accept the decisions of the Working
> Group
> Comments:
> Scene 1: Audio: She has a large screen and uses software to magnify
> content, large screen – computer screen , tv monitor, what size?

Why is the particular size of the screen relevant in this context? It 
seems to be adding unnecessary information that distract the viewer.


> Scene 1: Visual : Browsing then browse around again phrasing does not read
> well.

Changed to: "She browses around the page and leans in to read passages 
of text, then browses around again...".


> Scene 2: Audio: Should talk to reflow as “appearing in different
> positions”.

The sub-group prefers to limit the use of technical terms (jargon) per 
video to a minimum. The focus here is on "sensory characteristics" and 
other videos will focus on "reflow".


> Scene 2: Visual: things should be changed to specific content , or
> components, i.e. the buttons mentioned in the audio script.
> Hard to understand e.g. sidebar without actual visual example. If this is
> the visual, the audio should talk to that example then.

The description of the visuals has been improved for more clarity.

Please also note issue #68 on this script; we welcome your input on it:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/issues/68


>> ---------------------------------
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.4 "Orientation"
>>
>> ----
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.4 "Orientation" (Nearby:
>> previous version and changes made)
>> For each of your comments, please clearly indicate:
>>   * Location: eg. "SC 1.2.2 - Scene 2"
>>     * Priority: eg. "[e]" for editorial  or "[i]" for important
>>     * Current wording:
>>     * Suggested revision:
>>     * Rationale:
>>
>>
> 
>   * [ ] I am comfortable with this script as it currently is (no changes
> suggested)
>   * [x] Please consider my comments raised in GitHub or in the comments
> field below (for editors' discretion)
>   * [ ] I abstain from commenting and accept the decisions of the Working
> Group
> Comments:
> Scene 3 - talks to the issue visually, however isn't expressed in the audio
> version of the script, i.e. that tablet mounted in landscape with portrait
> view is presenting text sideways to Jan.

Changed to:
  - "Unfortunately some apps only work in portrait orientation, so Jan 
can not read the articles when the tablet is mounted on his wheelchair 
in landscape orientation."


> Scene 4 - what is the definition of working well ? The app is displayed in
> landscape mode and is fully functionable?

The full sentence reads (in combination with the sentence above):
  - "Apps work well for Jan when they do not require him to use any 
particular orientation."

Feel free to comment if these changes do not address your concerns.


>> ---------------------------------
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.5 "Identify Input
>> Purpose"
>>
>> ----
>> (Updated) Draft script for Success Criterion 1.3.5 "Identify Input
>> Purpose" (Nearby: previous version and changes made)
>> For each of your comments, please clearly indicate:
>>   * Location: eg. "SC 1.2.2 - Scene 2"
>>     * Priority: eg. "[e]" for editorial  or "[i]" for important
>>     * Current wording:
>>     * Suggested revision:
>>     * Rationale:
>>
>>
> 
>   * [ ] I am comfortable with this script as it currently is (no changes
> suggested)
>   * [x] Please consider my comments raised in GitHub or in the comments
> field below (for editors' discretion)
>   * [ ] I abstain from commenting and accept the decisions of the Working
> Group
> Comments:
> Scene 2 - We see a form asking for “Username” and “Password”, and
> he seems to have trouble typing in the username (he keeps reviewing the
> numbers and correcting mistake he made while typing). Mistake should be
> mistakes ? Or perhaps the letter "a" prior to word mistake.

Fixed, thanks.


> Scene 3 - The visual and audio script wording is confusing. If this is
> Jonathan's computer, why would he have different usernames to choose from?
> Would it be better to allow him to choose from one username that auto
> populates in the example to simplify the example. I.e. if his username is
> based on an identification number, he'd be choosing a specific username and
> probably using a specific one rather than choosing from a list of
> usernames.

Changed to "showing previous entries" and adapted rest accordingly.

The sub-group opened issue #69 on this script and welcomes your input:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/issues/69


>> ---------------------------------
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.1.1 "Keyboard"
>>
>> ----
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.1.1 "Keyboard"
>> For each of your comments, please clearly indicate:
>>   * Location: eg. "SC 1.2.2 - Scene 2"
>>     * Priority: eg. "[e]" for editorial  or "[i]" for important
>>     * Current wording:
>>     * Suggested revision:
>>     * Rationale:
>>
>>
> 
>   * [ ] I am comfortable with this script as it currently is (no changes
> suggested)
>   * [x] Please consider my comments raised in GitHub or in the comments
> field below (for editors' discretion)
>   * [ ] I abstain from commenting and accept the decisions of the Working
> Group
> Comments:
> Scene 1 - Visual talks to sip and puff , however audio script doesn't
> mention it. Do you want these to align to tell same story or have one thing
> said visually with audio not mentioning that particular attribute of
> Niando's experience?
> Scene 2 - Instead of "for this to work properly" , recommendation would be
> to change phrasing to "for Niando to open and write an email"
> Reading through this script, the audio script sometimes tells the story and
> sometimes the visual tells the story, with one relying on the other to tell
> the whole story.  Scene 2 talks to need for keyboard interface support but
> goes right into an example of mouse drag and drop within the same
> paragraph. The visual talks to open file, but that is not expressed in the
> audio version of script.  The visual tells the constraint, yet the audio
> doesn't.
> Scene 3 - Script for scene 3 doesn't seem finished.
> Scene 4 - Previous scenes talk to adding an attachment. This scene talks to
> visual script showcasing that file was selected, but audio based script
> doesn't go into detail of how she did it. We just had her saying "send
> message".

The sub-group opened issue #64 on this script and welcomes your input:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/issues/64


Regards,
   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, 21 June 2021 10:05:50 UTC