W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Review: Training Resource Suite - August 2010

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2010-08-16 to 2010-09-15.

13 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Support for publishing and announcing the pages as drafts for public review
  2. Overview page
  3. Accessibility Topics page
  4. Presentation Outlines page
  5. Workshop Outline page

1. Support for publishing and announcing the pages as drafts for public review

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I support publishing these Training pages as they are 5
I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion) 6
I support publishing these Training pages only with the changes in the comments sections below
I do not support publishing these Training pages, because of the comments in the comments sections below
I abstain (not vote) 2

Details

Responder Support for publishing and announcing the pages as drafts for public review
Darren Lunn I support publishing these Training pages as they are
Jennifer Sutton I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion)
Sylvie Duchateau I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion)
Doyle Saylor I support publishing these Training pages as they are
Shadi Abou-Zahra I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion)
Helle Bjarnø I support publishing these Training pages as they are
Sharron Rush I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion)
Ian Pouncey I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion)
Liam McGee I abstain (not vote)
Yeliz Yesilada I abstain (not vote)
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo I support publishing these Training pages; however, I suggest the changes in the comments sections below (for editors' discretion)
Shawn Lawton Henry I support publishing these Training pages as they are
Andrew Arch I support publishing these Training pages as they are

2. Overview page

First select which version of the Training Overview page these comments apply to. The version date is in the main heading level 1.

For each comment, remember to indicate if it is a suggestion for editor's discretion or if you feel it must be addressed before this version is published.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
updated 17 August 2010 10
updated 11 August 2010
Other date, included in Review Comments field below.

Details

Responder Overview pageReivew Comments
Darren Lunn updated 17 August 2010
Jennifer Sutton updated 17 August 2010 I submitted comments on 2010/08/17 to the EOWG-Editors List; Andrew has indicated that he took some of them into consideration.
Sylvie Duchateau updated 17 August 2010 Very clear page.
Doyle Saylor
Shadi Abou-Zahra updated 17 August 2010 "WAI offers materials for speakers and trainers to help their audience/students understand more about web accessibility" -> "WAI offers materials for speakers and trainers to help their audience (training participants) understand more about web accessibility"


"example outlines that combine some Topics for presentations on:" -> "example outlines of presentations that combine some of the Topics:"
Helle Bjarnø updated 17 August 2010
Sharron Rush updated 17 August 2010 Good!
Ian Pouncey updated 17 August 2010 Priority: editor's discretion
Location: closing paragraph
Current: 'Feel free to use this material...'
Suggested: 'You are free to use this material...'
Rationale: Current wording is too casual
Liam McGee updated 17 August 2010
Yeliz Yesilada
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo updated 17 August 2010 Looks fine for me.
Shawn Lawton Henry I support publishing all the pages as Drafts for public review.
Andrew Arch updated 17 August 2010

3. Accessibility Topics page

Select which version of the Accessibility Topics page these comments apply to.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
updated 17 August 2010 10
updated 11 August 2010
Other date, included in Review Comments field below.

Details

Responder Accessibility Topics pageReview Comments
Darren Lunn updated 17 August 2010
Jennifer Sutton updated 17 August 2010 I submitted comments to the EOWG-Editors List on 2010/08/17; Andrew has indicated that he took some of them into consideration.
Sylvie Duchateau updated 17 August 2010 1. Editors discretion:
Location: 2. How people with disabilities use the Web, section h3 "description" First paragraph, first sentence.
this sentence seems to be a little bit long and I wonder if a verb is missing.
Actual text: "This topic explores the barriers faced by people with disabilities and older people as they access the Web and an introduction to principles of accessible
design as a way to accommodate assistive technologies and adaptive browsing strategies."
Proposed change: "This topic explores the barriers faced by people with disabilities and older people as they access the Web. It gives also an introduction to principles of accessible
design as a way to accommodate assistive technologies and adaptive browsing strategies."
----
2. Same section, h3 what this topic covers.
Editor's discretion: Make sure that you capitalise each begining of bullet in the first list of this section, or that you write each beginning bullet without capitals.
Same list: all bullets are list of facts : "barriers, assistive technologies and adaptive strategies..." except first bullet that is a full sentence: "Web accessibility has a direct impact on the lives of people with various disabilities and age-related impairments".
Proposed change for this bullet: "The direct impact of Web accessibility on the lives of people with various disabilities and age-related impairments".
Rationale: consistency.
---
3. H4 primary resources:
Editor's discretion:
Is the term ICT not too jargony? May be it could be made explicit with meaning in parenthesis or acronym?
----
4. whole document:
Editor's discretion: sometimes the term WCAG 2.0 is used, sometimes only WCAG 2. Is it intended or should it be made consistent through the whole document?
-----
5. Section migrating to WCAG 2.
Location: "What this topic covers".
Editor's discretion: like in previous note on ow people with disabilities use the Web, there is no consistency in the bulleted list. The first sentence is different from the rest of the list.
"Accessibility is fundamentally still the same - the basic goals of accessibility have not changed".
No proposed change, I don't know what is exactly meant here.
------
6. 10. Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
Location: audience
question to editor: "Part of this topic seems to be technical. So are policy makers and procurement personnel appropriate for this training?
-----
7. Whole document:
Editor's discretion: sometimes you see the term "some video ..." and sometimes "some videos" (mainly in the links leading to videos". this should be made consistent.

Doyle Saylor
Shadi Abou-Zahra updated 17 August 2010 Change "http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/adaptive/strategies.html" to "http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/browsing" throughout


avoid extensions in URLs (in particular ".php") where possible, to maximize their validity (the extensions indicate the implementation which may change over time).


"The many ways that people's lives are affected by lack of equal access to web based information & services" -> "The effect of accessibility barriers on web based information systems and services" OR "The effect of accessibility barriers on websites and web applications" -- to suit typical WAI terminology


"Demonstration: Show some videos of people with disabilities using the Web - external page, OR discuss some scenarios from How People with Disabilities use the Web to illustrate the importance of web accessibility" -- could also be split into "Discussion:" and "Demonstration:".


"When they answer ramps, curb cuts, captions, automatic doors, elevators, etc." -- what do you mean by "captions" in the built environment? Maybe ask the audience "What kind of accessibility accommodations in buildings, transport, or every day life are you aware of?" to accommodate for broader answers?


[IMPORTANT] "Provide an understanding of common barriers experienced by people with disabilities and older users when accessing the Web and the importance of web accessibility in an information society." -- why the focus on barriers only? Maybe "Provide an understanding of how people with disabilities and older users access the Web, and the type of barriers they {can|sometimes|often|-} encounter."


"This topic explores the barriers faced by people with disabilities and older people as they access the Web and an introduction to principles of accessible design as a way to accommodate assistive technologies and adaptive browsing strategies." -- same as above, change to more positive (the cool gadgets and innovations that some people use, and the stupid mistakes that some developers make)


"Web accessibility has a direct impact on the lives of people with various disabilities and age-related impairments" -- this repeats much of the first topic. I'd suggest removing and focusing on the ways in which people with disabilities use the Web, as per above.


"the interplay of user agents with web content in delivering web accessibility and role of WAI guidelines" -- sidenote: caps in "the" -- I don't think that this is the main point of this Topic, to avoid repetition with the third Topic. Maybe change to "Existing accessibility requirements for websites and web software"?


"velcro" -- link to wikipedia definition?


"grandparents who may be facing accessibility barriers" -- does "face" have a negative connotation or is it just my reading? Maybe "experiencing" (though it's a little formal).


"Introduction to WAI's three sets of guidelines that contribute to an accessible web" -> "Introduction to the WAI guidelines and other WAI standards for web accessibility" -- to include WAI-ARIA etc.


"This topic explores the WAI Guidelines for user agents (browsers and media players), for authoring tools and for web content. It covers how they work together to substantially improve Web accessibility." -> "This topic explores the components of web accessibility, in particular the WAI Guidelines for user agents (browsers and media players), for authoring tools and for web content. It covers how they work together to substantially improve Web accessibility." -- also consider expanding the inline list into bullets.


"(with WAI-ARIA as an enabler)" -- move as a separate bullet, like "WAI-ARIA for dynamic web pages and applications"


"Effective advocacy includes the need to be flexible, to present information specific to each particular audience" -- seems like a speaker note rather than a learning objective. Maybe change it to "Some of the WAI resources to help you reach your audience"


"The structure of WCAG 2.0 success criteria and associated techniques (Failure, Sufficient, Advisory)" -> "The structure of WCAG 2.0 success criteria and associated techniques (Sufficient, Advisory, Failure)"


"Ask about the content management systems (CMS)" -- remove title-attribute from the acronym-element (but keep the acronym element).


"Demonstration: Web access via a mobile phone or hand-held device to popular/relevant websites (or use a mobile browser emulation) to illustrate the wider benefits of web accessibility" -- very tricky these days! Meanwhile, many "popular websites" work quite well on phones but are still horribly inaccessible (eg Facebook, Google, ...). Fix in Topic 11 and 15.


Topic 12 -- add BAD as a "Demonstration:" for retrofitting a website (under "Suggestions for speakers").
Helle Bjarnø updated 17 August 2010
Sharron Rush updated 17 August 2010 Excellent editing. Clarity and focus greatly improved, good work!
Ian Pouncey updated 17 August 2010 Priority: editor's discretion
Location: How People with Disabilities Use the Web, Suggestions for speakers, first bullet
Current: 'Use various assistive technologies and adaptive strategies, OR show some images..'
Suggested: Do not uppercase 'OR'
Rationale: OR suggests that demonstrating a technology and showing images of others would be a bad thing, which in my opinion is not the case.

Priority: editor's discretion
Location: All sections, Suggestions for speakers, Questions
Can we give suggestions for, or links to, what would be considered a correct answer. Without this some of the more complex questions might lead to bad advice being given.
For example 'Question: Ask participants to think about the key components in web interaction (creation and consumption). Is it enough to make just one of these components accessible?'. The answer is not 'No' exactly, although that is the obvious and easy answer. It is not enough to make just one component accessible, but with limited resources it is better to make one and not the other accessible than none at all.


Priority: editor's discretion
Location: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA)
Would a mention of HTML5 be worthwhile in this section - the Suggestions for speakers demonstration of drag-and-drop etc is likely to lead to some discussion of HTML5 native equivalents, even if implementations are not currently accessible. Perhaps state that HTML5 does not make WAI-ARIA redundant.
Liam McGee updated 17 August 2010
Yeliz Yesilada
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo updated 17 August 2010 My suggestion: Use ARIA to collapse the page by items.
The "Before and after demostration" linked (http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/) should be finished. Comments are currently lacking in many of the highlights.
Shawn Lawton Henry
Andrew Arch updated 17 August 2010

4. Presentation Outlines page

Select which version of the Presentation Outlines page these comments apply to.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
updated 11 August 2010 2
updated 20 August 2010 8
Other date, included in Review Comments field below.

Details

Responder Presentation Outlines pageReview Comments
Darren Lunn updated 11 August 2010
Jennifer Sutton updated 20 August 2010 I submitted comments on 2010/08/22 to the EOWG-Editors List; Andrew has indicated that he took some of them into consideration.
Sylvie Duchateau updated 20 August 2010 One note has been sent to wai-eo-editors on typo.
I like the format without tables in nested lists and hope that those who favoured tabular presentation can live with this new design.
Doyle Saylor
Shadi Abou-Zahra updated 20 August 2010 Change "http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/adaptive/strategies.html" to "http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/browsing" throughout


avoid extensions in URLs (in particular ".php") where possible, to maximize their validity (the extensions indicate the implementation which may change over time).


[Important] In the "Sample outline" sections, consider removing links to resources already in the Topics. For instance, "Describe _what web accessibility_ is and _why it's important" -> "Describe what web accessibility is and why it's important". The amount of links is overwhelming and not really helpful. You may need to do some adaptations, like "Discuss some of the scenarios from How People with Disabilities use the Web and/or Show some short videos of people with disabilities using the Web" -> "Discuss how people with disabilities use the Web and/or show some short videos of people with disabilities using the Web" etc.


"Talk about content being perceivable, operable, understandable and robust (POUR)" -> fix coding of acronym element (and remove the title attribute if you use the element after the expansion).
Helle Bjarnø updated 20 August 2010
Sharron Rush updated 20 August 2010 I am sorry that I don't have more specific comments, but something about the organization of this still seems congested. The flow is clumsy and it seems that it could easily be confusing, especially when contrasted with the clarity of what went before. And this could just be me but I think the abundance of parentheses contributes to the confusion.
Ian Pouncey updated 20 August 2010 Priority: editor's discretion
Location: Using an accessible web, section title
Current: '(1 hour for people with accessibility needs)'
While this follows the same pattern as the other outlines reading this in isolation sounds like it could be read as '(1 hour for people with accessibility needs, 30 minutes for people without accessibility needs)'! Should the time and the target audience be separated to avoid unfortunate phrasing?
Liam McGee updated 11 August 2010
Yeliz Yesilada
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo updated 20 August 2010 Same comment as ibidem for the "before and ...".
Shawn Lawton Henry
Andrew Arch updated 20 August 2010

5. Workshop Outline page

Select which version of the Workshop Outline page these comments apply to.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
updated 11 August 2010 5
Other date, included in Review Comments field below. 4

Details

Responder Workshop Outline pageReview Comments
Darren Lunn updated 11 August 2010
Jennifer Sutton I submitted comments on 2010/08/22 to the EOWG-Editors List; Andrew has indicated that he took some of them into consideration.
Sylvie Duchateau Other date, included in Review Comments field below. This review concerns 20 August update. This document is very clear and contains only a note sent to wai-editor's list.
I am just afraid that all topics may not be covered because of lack of time. So I think it was good to add a note in the introduction indicating that this outline is a suggestion and that it can be adapted according to the presenter's and audience's needs.
Doyle Saylor
Shadi Abou-Zahra Other date, included in Review Comments field below. [Editor's draft in progress - updated 20 August 2010]


[Important] Consider removing the links from the "Outline" sections. They are more distracting (and daunting) than helpful.


Fix use of acronym elements in at least two or more locations throughout the page.
Helle Bjarnø updated 11 August 2010
Sharron Rush updated 11 August 2010 I think this could be a very good orientation and grounding in training a group in holistic thinking about their accessibility practice. However, I have some structural questions. Who is going to use this? What kind of background do we think this person or persons will need to qualify them to use the resources effectively? Should that be stated explicitly?

There should probably be a stronger expectation setting framework - a kind of disclaimer. People need to know that this is not an out-of-the-box set of training modules. While that fact is implied with language like "resources that you can use as building blocks to develop your presentation and activities," it may need to be stated more explicitly, perhaps in the "Important Notes" section.

Overall the resources are excellent. I just worry that unless the trainer is already a skilled practitioner we may be setting unrealistic expectations. We don't want people to think that the rote application of these resources can be effective without some experience. Or to expect that by using the resources in a kind of color-by-number way that they will have good outcomes.

Maybe something about how important it is to know your audience - are they government agency folks, university-based, private industry - and creating modules that are specifically meaningful. I think there needs to be more encouragement for using examples that are relevant or directly related to the work of the group in training. (I know there are a couple of references in there, but perhaps add more)

Also seems like we should encourage trainers to get daily feedback in the form of online or paper surveys about how their participants are feeling about the information they are getting. The idea would be to respond to feedback as quickly as possible, to adjust focus over the three days if it is called for, etc.

Seems like a tremendous amount of thought went into putting this together, kudos! Excellent resources and good work here, just needs some honing in on who and how to be most effective and useful. Thanks!
Ian Pouncey Other date, included in Review Comments field below. Reviewed version updated 20 August 2010

Priority: editor's discretion
Location: Introduction, 2nd paragraph
Current: 'ee also: How to Make Your Presentations Accessible to All...'
Can we make this section standout more - I think that encouraging event organises to read the accessible presentations document is critical here.
Liam McGee updated 11 August 2010
Yeliz Yesilada
Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo Other date, included in Review Comments field below. (The version was updated 20 August 2010)
I miss a lesson on how to check accessibility.
Shawn Lawton Henry
Andrew Arch updated 11 August 2010

More details on responses

  • Darren Lunn: last responded on 18, August 2010 at 13:59 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Sutton: last responded on 27, August 2010 at 18:39 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 31, August 2010 at 14:04 (UTC)
  • Doyle Saylor: last responded on 31, August 2010 at 22:16 (UTC)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 1, September 2010 at 08:36 (UTC)
  • Helle Bjarnø: last responded on 10, September 2010 at 18:18 (UTC)
  • Sharron Rush: last responded on 10, September 2010 at 18:58 (UTC)
  • Ian Pouncey: last responded on 10, September 2010 at 23:00 (UTC)
  • Liam McGee: last responded on 13, September 2010 at 15:56 (UTC)
  • Yeliz Yesilada: last responded on 14, September 2010 at 11:18 (UTC)
  • Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo: last responded on 15, September 2010 at 00:01 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 15, September 2010 at 13:50 (UTC)
  • Andrew Arch: last responded on 15, September 2010 at 16:37 (UTC)

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Eric Velleman
  2. Kazuhito Kidachi
  3. Jedi Lin
  4. David Sloan
  5. Mary Jo Mueller
  6. Vicki Menezes Miller
  7. Reinaldo Ferraz
  8. Bill Kasdorf
  9. Cristina Mussinelli
  10. Kevin White
  11. Kevin Rydberg
  12. Adina Halter
  13. Denis Boudreau
  14. Laura Keen
  15. Sarah Pulis
  16. Bill Tyler
  17. Gregorio Pellegrino
  18. Ruoxi Ran
  19. Jennifer Chadwick
  20. Sean Kelly
  21. Muhammad Saleem
  22. Sarah Lewthwaite
  23. Daniel Montalvo
  24. Mark Palmer
  25. Jade Matos Carew
  26. Sonsoles López Pernas
  27. Greta Krafsig
  28. Jason McKee
  29. Jayne Schurick
  30. Billie Johnston
  31. Michele Williams
  32. Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
  33. Brian Elton
  34. Julianna Rowsell
  35. Tabitha Mahoney
  36. Fred Edora
  37. Rabab Gomaa
  38. Marcelo Paiva
  39. Eloisa Guerrero
  40. Leonard Beasley
  41. Frankie Wolf
  42. Supriya Makude
  43. Aleksandar Cindrikj
  44. Angela Young

Send an email to all the non-responders.

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.