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

Hi Makoto,

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


On 03/06/2021 05:06, Makoto Ueki 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:
> Location: SC 1.3.1 - Scene 6
> Priority: [e]
> Current wording: Fortunately content authors at her company
> Suggested revision: Fortunately content authors for the website
> Rationale: It would be rare case that users are using their companies'
> websites in their daily life. We should make the case more common
> situation.

This has been changed to:
  - "Fortunately the internal website she mainly uses for her job has 
well-designed page structures, so that she can work efficiently."

Here you can find this and other 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:
> Location: SC 1.3.3 - Scene 4
> Priority: [i]
> Current wording: “press the button at the end of this form”
> Suggested revision: “press the OK button at the end of this form”
> Rationale: It is still rely on the location only. There might be multiple
> button there. It is very imporatnt to identify the label of the button and
> the button has its label on it.

Good point, this change has been made.

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


>> ---------------------------------
>> 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:
> Location: SC 2.1.1 - story
> Priority: [i]
> Current wording: “ She uses voice commands to operate the computer and
> speech recognition software to type text.”
> Suggested revision:  It is one of use cases. But it might be better that
> the video focuses on those who rely on keyboards when interacting with web
> content.
> Rationale: It is difficult for people to understand how voice commands and
> speech recognition software have something to do with keyboard operability.
> 
> 
> Understanding WCAG document is saying, in the "Intent" section, "When
> content can be operated through a keyboard or alternate keyboard, it is
> operable by people with no vision (who cannot use devices such as mice that
> require eye-hand coordination) as well as by people who must use alternate
> keyboards or input devices that act as keyboard emulators."
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/keyboard.html#intent

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


>> ---------------------------------
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.1.3 "Keyboard (No Exception)"
>>
>> ----
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.1.3 "Keyboard (No Exception)"
>> 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:
> Do we need the video for SC 2.1.3 in the first place? I think it would be
> good enough if we have the video for SC 2.1.1. People can understand how
> important the keyboard operability is. If we have both, it will be needed
> to describe the difference between 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.

We will review necessity of individual videos at a later stage. We note 
your concern about difficult to differentiate between this and 2.1.1.

The sub-group opened issue #66 on this script and welcomes your input:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/issues/66


>> ---------------------------------
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.1.4 "Character Key Shortcuts"
>>
>> ----
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.1.4 "Character Key Shortcuts"
>> 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 to Detlev

This script has been put on hold for now due to conflicting suggestions.


>> ---------------------------------
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.3.1 "Three Flashes or Below
>> Threshold"
>>
>> ----
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.3.1 "Three Flashes or Below
>> Threshold"
>> 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:
>>
>>
> 
>   * [x] I am comfortable with this script as it currently is (no changes
> suggested)
>   * [ ] 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:
> Except for typo in Scene 3.

Fixed, thanks.

The sub-group opened issue #67 on this script and welcomes your input:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/issues/67


>> ---------------------------------
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.3.2 "Three Flashes"
>>
>> ----
>> Draft script for Success Criterion 2.3.2 "Three Flashes"
>> 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:
> Location: SC 2.3.2  - Scene 3
> Priority: [i]
> Current wording: "Fortunately her preferred streaming app does not use
> videos with flashes that cause her to have migraines"
> Suggested revision:
> Rationale: Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.2: Three Flashes
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/three-flashes.html#intent
> It reads "The intent is to guard against flashing larger than a single
> pixel, but since an unknown amount of magnification or high contrast
> setting may be applied, the prohibition is against any flashing." Why don't
> we merge SC 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 in one video? While Level A has exceptions, we
> should encourage them to avoid "anything that flashes more than three times
> in any one second period".

Changes have been made to clarify the intended meaning. Please confirm 
if this addresses your comments, other please add further comments:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-videos/pull/63/files


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 10:07:00 UTC