The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: email@example.com
This questionnaire was open from 2011-06-23 to 2011-07-13.
8 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
Which revision of the page do these comments apply to? The revision date is in the green box, after "Editors' Draft updated:", which is right under heading level 1.
|Date not listed here. (Please put the date in Date field below.)||2|
|$Date: 2011/06/24 03:52:04 $||2|
|Vicki Menezes Miller||$Date: 2011-06-23$|
|Cliff Tyllick||Date not listed here. (Please put the date in Date field below.)||2011/06/24 02:49:15|
|Andrew Arch||$Date: 2011/06/24 03:52:04 $|
|Sharron Rush||$Date: 2011/06/24 03:52:04 $|
|Shawn Henry||$Date: 2011-06-23$|
|Wayne Dick||Date not listed here. (Please put the date in Date field below.)||2011 -06 -27|
|Denis Boudreau||$Date: 2011-06-23$|
|Jennifer Sutton||$Date: 2011-06-27$||June 27, 2011|
(remember to include priority, location, suggested revision, and rationale for each comment.)
|Vicki Menezes Miller||priority: [important to be addressed before publication]|
"In developing policies for Web accessibility, many regional, national, and local governments have taken advantage of the broadly accepted worldwide standards, the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. "
In developing policies for Web accessibility, many regional, national, and local governments have taken advantage of worldwide accepted standards, the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
rationale: I think the word "broadly" in the first sentence of this article weakens the argument for why governments should use WCAG 2.0.
|Andrew Arch||1. Priority: strong suggestion; Location: Exec Summary|
As raised last week, I am still of the opinion that the Exec Summary is overly long (cf the overall length of the doc) and carries too much of the material from the body of the document rather than just highlighting the key elements
2. Priority: medium suggestion; Location: Exec Summary
The excessive amount of bolding makes it harder to skim – can we at least remove the bolding from the para that starts “Use of international Web accessibility standards can ...” and maybe reduce the bolding on the bullets (maybe even remove from the “Fragmentation of standards” bullets)
3. Priority: copyedit; Location Exec Summary
Some strange time stamping has appeared in the second para [07:06:56] and some words appear to be missing
4. Priority: copyedit; Location: Intro
“Worldwide, one billion people worldwide have significant disabilities” – the recent WHO report actually says more than 1 billion people. Also, “worldwide” is repated in the sentence. Consider changing the first sentence to “Worldwide, over one billion people have significant disabilities”
5. Priority: medium; Location Intro
Split into two paras as two ideas (library + companion stds) – split at “Two companion standards supplement WCAG 2.0: the ...” for the second para
6. Priority: copyedit; Location: Fragmentation, 2nd para
Capitalisation: “and Web developers” to “and web developers”
7. Priority: copyedit; Location: Fragmentation, bullet list
Excessive bolding, but no bolding on first item
8. Priority: medium; Location: Fragmentation, 2nd bullet
Consider dropping the text between the em-dashes (including businesses and non-governmental organizations) - I think this is self evident, and reduces the amount of text that is bolded
9. Priority: low; Location: Harmonisation, 1st para
Consider not bolding the 2nd sentence to improve readability; 1st sentence is the main point.
10. Priority: medium; Location: Harmonisation
Another plus for harmonisation is the availability of CMSs and Authoring tools and testing tools that can be adopted off-the-shelf by Govts/Orgs that adopt international standards
|Sharron Rush||Sorry I was away this week and am just now catching up. Will review this but have family reunion this weekend and may have trouble making comments by noon deadline. Any hope of extension?|
|Shawn Henry||Overall significant issue [important to be addressed before publication]:|
The positioning of WCAG versus all WAI guidelines is not clear. Ideally we want policies to adopt or reference all three -- WCAG, UAAG, ATAG -- yes? I think it needs another pass to see how to communicate that effectively... without being too complicated, of course :-).
Overall issues for discussion [strong suggestion for EOWG consideration]:
I think the Exe Sum should be pared down quite a bit and significantly simplified. The document feels really repetitive in an uncomfortable way – because the Exe Sum is so detailed. The current version of the document is easy to skim, and I think future edits will make it even more highly skimmable. This relieves the some of the burden from the Executive Summary.
The target audience for the Exe Sum is people who will only read a tiny bit (at least at first, we hope they’ll go back and read the rest later) – e.g., on their way into a meeting on accessibility policies. How about making it even more quickly consumable. For example, like a presentation has short bullets projected on screen but the speaker expounds on them – make the Exe Sum really direct, very succinct, and a lot shorter, and then the rest of the doc expounds on the points for those who have the time or need to understand more.
Some general and overall comments: [most are mild suggestions for editors' discretion]:
* The beginning of the Introduction is not working for me. I’ll try to have thoughts sorted through before the telecom.
* I suggest changing "education and training materials" to just "education materials" throughout. Rationale: "education" includes "training"; currently our training materials are not a particular strength; that phrase is often used with others making complex structure (e.g., "online technical reference materials, and education and training materials;".
* Throughout there is the phrase “national and local policies”. It feels like that leaves out regional policies and organizational policies. Would it work in the first reference in each major section you say “regional, national, local, and organizational policies|versions” and then after that just say “policies”?
* The document has too much bold. Personally I like bold to facilitate skimming; however, when there is too much, it hinders skimming. For example, I think the paragraph right before Introduction should not be bold at all.
* WAI style recently is websites and lowercase web. However, if you feel strongly about capitalizing Web, that's OK, as we're not consistent with old and new documents. However, should be consistent within the doc, of course.
* In the Page Contents box, use the full <h2> text. Rationale: Matches elsewhere on WAI website. Provides a clear contents list for the sections.
* For lists that belong with the paragraph before them, the markup to eliminate the space between is:
<p class= “listintro”>
* Markup – and — as appropriate.
*** Significant detailed comments submitted via <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2011Jun/0006.html">e-mail</a>.
|Wayne Dick||Really excellent...|
--The reorganization of the Exec Summary is just what is needed. You did not loose any information.
--Good treatment of principles, guidelines and criteria. Nice compromise between random selection and all of WCAG at a Glance.
--I'm not good on word smithing and editorial errors, but it reads well, and avoid little changes at this point.
--It is good to go.
|Denis Boudreau||First, I would like to congratulate the editors of this new version for a job well-done. Reading through it all, I am happy to say that I can now fully support the document, even though I work for a government that decided to take the fragmentation path. I'll even go as far as to say that if such a document had been available four years ago, I might have been able to convince the government officials I worked for that fragmentation was a bad idea. This is how good I think this is.|
While I understand the risks related to standards fragmentation, I still believe we managed to create one in Quebec that does not jeopardize web accessibility in the long run. This document doesn't exclude that possibility, so I'm happy with it and wasn't asking for more. I'm glad you accepted my proposals to change some of the passages in the text to reflect upon that.
I am very comfortable with this document going as is. All the problems I had with it are gone and the new structure of the document makes it a much easier read, which can only help get the message across to the next governments that will be tempted by an accessibility policy of some sort.
|Jennifer Sutton||All comments are for editor's discretion.|
1. Executive Summary:
[JS: Add "On the other hand,"] [s]ome
governments develop multiple divergent standards, potentially slowing progress
towards the goal of an accessible Web.
2. Executive summary:
"governments must spend more resources to develop alternate versions of
technical references, training curricula, educational materials and other
A. Change the last occurrence of "resources" to information?
B. Maybe, instead of "spend more resources," it should be "expend more human and financial resources?" Or perhaps it's implicit that it's not just about money.
3. Executive Summary:
"Adopting or referencing [js: del of] widely
recognized international Web accessibility standards in policies means that:
policy makers, accessibility advocates, and industry proponents of Web
accessibility benefit from years of international collaboration on the
development of WCAG 2.0, other W3C/WAI standards, and supporting
4. Why Standards Harmonization Helps Web Accessibility
"Web developers and content developers can"
JS: Change to:
"Web and content developers can . . ."
From your perspective, how close is this document to being ready for publication as a public draft for review?
|It is really close, just needs a little polishing.||5|
|It is close, but there are a few minor issues to be addressed.||1|
|There are significant issues that need to be addressed.||1|
|(I'm not sure how close it is.)||1|
|Responder||How close to public draft for review?|
|Vicki Menezes Miller||It is really close, just needs a little polishing.|
|Cliff Tyllick||It is really close, just needs a little polishing.||Something is missing at the beginning of the last bullet in the Executive Summary.|
|Andrew Arch||It is close, but there are a few minor issues to be addressed.|
|Sharron Rush||(I'm not sure how close it is.)||Will work on review as possible but am catching up after a conference week and with conversation at today's meeting, I am less sure than I was last week. sorry|
|Shawn Henry||There are significant issues that need to be addressed.||I think it is looking *really* good! I think it won't take much to get it to a level that we are comfortable publishing it as a Draft for public review.|
|Wayne Dick||It is really close, just needs a little polishing.|
|Denis Boudreau||It is really close, just needs a little polishing.||I did however, pick up a few typos along the way:|
“standards fragmentation”—use of divergent : missing a space before and after the "—"
standards—can slow potential : missing a space before and after the "—"
"mpossible" : missing an "i" in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction section
"or screen magnifiers Divergent standards" : missing a period after "magnifiers" in last bullet of Fragmentation concerns section
|Jennifer Sutton||It is really close, just needs a little polishing.|
Check all that apply at this time. (You can change them later.)
|I have reviewed parts of it, but still need to do a thorough review.||1|
|I have carefully reviewed all of this version (the Date entered in the "Version" question above) and entered my comments here.||3|
(4 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
|Responder||Status of Your Review||Comments|
|Vicki Menezes Miller|
||Mostly - except for the last section.|
||We spent a lot of time, but it was not wasted. You listened and incorporated everything important to me.|
--My own picky point, but WAI should stop doing this, somewhere and why not here. Screen Magnifiers do not require accessibility. You can magnify an orange with a lens. Why don't we stop mentioning them; it gives the impression that if some person can use a screen magnifier to read, then the site is accessible. Just drop this AT from references associated with accessibility. Screen Magnifiers have nothing to do with accessibility. Their purpose is to do the best thing possible with inaccessible information.
||Will look at the new version sent last night and issue more comments in the next few days.|
|I have reviewed parts of it, but still need to do a thorough review.||
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
Send an email to all the non-responders.