Skip to
content
[DRAFT] Analysis/Requiremenst & Changelog for Standards Harmonization doc
Latest draft: Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility
Page Contents
Objectives, Goals, Purpose
Ultimate goal: Use WCAG 2.0, UAAG, and ATAG as is (rather than changing them).
For this document & slide(s):
- Introduce concept of standards harmonization for web accessibility
- Pursuade people of the value of standards harmonization for web accessibility
- Provide a clear and portable message that accessibility proponents can take to policy makers
Audience and Messages
Primary audiences:
- Policy makers
Secondary audiences:
- Accessibility proponents -- people who take the message to policy makers of the need to work on web accessibility. These accessibility proponents may be people from disability organizations, from research organizations or consultancies, from small businesses, large corporations, or standards organizations. They may be one government organization, for instance with responsibility for implementing the United Nations Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities, and that needs to gain the attention and cooperation of another government organizations, such as a Ministry of Information Technology.
Approach
Revise Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility
- Shorten & tersify
- Update all references from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0, and also add clearer references to ATAG and UAAG
- Re-organize intro to provide an executive summary instead of an abstract, or in addition to a only a very short abstract
- Provide a clear explanation of what we mean by standards harmonization, and also explain the scope of the document
- Remove the tabular analytical material and provide a clear summary of rationales instead, without losing the content of this
- Focus more on pursuading different audiences of the importance of standards harmonization for accessibility, possibly in a more concise background section
- Provide alternative suggestions for concerns that typically lead people to create derivative or fragmented versions of standards
- Reflect updated situations such potential ISO PAS submission
Notes
- Comments from F2F
meeting discussion, 24 May 2011:
- executive summary should be concise, so that people can get the overall picture in one big bite
- i.d. the "authority of the speaker"
- needs clear & persuasive rhetorical flow
- try a more positive tone
- leading with "Web accessibility is a broad and complex thing" may be discouraging to the reader
- should take advantage of ethical argument for accessibility of the web
- should emphasize the solution that we offer; try presenting a very brief version of that in top paragraph
- try ending document on a high -- "we've got the solution; we've even thought about how to address the harmonization challenges for you"
- should map to the rest of the document (indicate that there is more info on specific areas)
- careful of un-introduced jargon (with regard to "normative," for instance)
- careful of "localization" terminonlogy; may be misunderstood; if what we mean is national governments, we should say that
- better not to mention the perception of US-only standard, but just to emphasize that this is an international standard
- careful to use examples from different types of disabilities; first draft gives impression of addressing visual disabilities only
Open Issues:
- ...
References
Drafts and discussions:
Related materials:
Changelog
- 13 May EOWG telecon suggestions
Archive
...