Changelog for How to Make Presentations Accessible to All

# Comment 1:

• Location: Ask if participants have accessibility requirements
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: "send an email to internal training participants, etc"
• Comment: it is unclear what "internal training participants" are
• Suggestion: "For example, include a question on registration forms and invitations for conferences, meetings, and trainings, to invite participants to include specific accessibility requests" (see #2)

Editor: When I’m doing training within an organization, I might not have registration forms or invitations. I want the examples to get people thinking, not cover every point. I want to avoid “conferences, meetings, and trainings” in the examples. I think “invite participants to include specific accessibility requests” needs to be a separate point, not part of the example.

Changed “...send an email to company-internal training participants...”

# Comment 2:

• Location: Ask if participants have accessibility requirements
• Priority: medium, may need some discussion
• Text: "Invite participants to include specific requests, for example, seating small discussion groups in a circle so you can see each other is useful for people who are hard of hearing"
• Comment: example may be too complex or daunting to readers, especially since it is the first specific example in the document
• Suggestion: remove example or replace with simpler ones if needed

Editor: I’m missing why it is complex and daunting. Also note that a commenter requested that seating people in a circle was required as a main point (a <dt>). The commenter is satisfied with this compromise; however, I’m sure she would not like the example removed all together.

Changed added semi-colon to separate the example more: “Invite participants to include specific requests; for example, seating small discussion groups in a circle...”

*EOWG for discussion*: Can this example be made less complex and daunting? Or is it OK? Can this point be made elsewhere? Should a simple example be added?

# Comment 3:

• - Location: Ensure the facility and area is accessible
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: "When feasible, allow participants to check out the room in advance to ... "
• Comment: "when feasible" sounds like an obligation
• Suggestion: consider "if possible", "when needed", or "if requested"; or drop this sentence entirely

Editor: I think “when feasible” is less of an obligation than the other suggestions; however, I’m OK with “possible”.

Changed “When possible,...”

# Comment 4:

• Location: Ensure the facility and area is accessible
• Priority: medium, may need some discussion
• Text: entire paragraph
• Comment: (1) built-environment accessibility is more than wheelchair accessibility, (2) paragraph is complex because of AV considerations
• Suggestion: split paragraph into two, physical and AV accessibility; for example as follows:

[[
* Ensure the venue is physically accessible.
For example, inquire if all relevant rooms and facilities, including the building entrance, meeting room, break rooms, and bathrooms meet accessibility standards. Ensure access for wheelchair users, people who can not walk for long distances or climb steps in a theater or podium, and people who may not be able to see or use elevator buttons, etc.

* Check all audio-visual (AV) systems.
Ensure adequate sound system, including working ALD/hearing loop with sufficient batteries as needed. Ensure that sound and screen display work with assistive technologies used by presenters, and for remote or present CART writers and interpreters as needed.
]]

Editor: We didn’t even have these points in the early versions, because we didn’t want to get into that level of detail. Also, this is page is targeted more for speakers, rather than event organizers. In any case, I think it is not worth expanding the length of the document. Remember that Judy commented that the document is already long and potentially overwhelming.

Changed Added to “wishlist” in analysis/requirements/changelog: separate guidance for speakers and for organizers.

*EOWG for discussion*: Can we justify expanding the document to add this?

# Comment 5:

• Location: Arrange for a microphone
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: new text proposed
• Comment: add something about sufficient microphones
• Suggestion: "Provide microphones for all speaker and for the audience as needed, and ensure connection to the ALD/hearing loop system"

Editor: I think not worth adding length and complexity.

Changed To plural: “Arrange for microphones.” and “...the presenters...”

# Comment 6:

• Location: Work with CART writer and interpreters
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: "Work with CART writer and interpreters"
• Comment: preference for edits suggested below
• Suggestion: "Arrange for CART writer and interpreters as needed"

Editor: Again, this is written more for the speaker than the organizer. The explanation is “Give them material in advance and be available to answer any questions.”

# Comment 7:

• Location: Provide material ahead of time
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: entire section
• Comment: it is unclear what material to provide ahead of time
• Suggestion: consider spelling out, like "provide slides, hand-outs or other material to CART writers, interpreters, and participants as needed"

Changed “Provide slides, handouts, and other material to participants, CART writers, and interpreters, as needed.”

# Comment 8:

• Location: Provide material ahead of time
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: "More about accessible material below"
• Comment: make link text same as the heading text to help associate
• Suggestion: "More about providing accessible material below"

Changed (More about _providing accessible material_ is below.)

# Comment 9:

• Location: new (after "Provide material ahead of time")
• Priority: medium, may need some discussion
• Text: new text proposed
• Comment: add something about appropriate agenda planning
• Suggestion:

[[
* Provide a reliable agenda.
Ensure sufficient breaks, include sessions for orientation and logistics, provide information about room location, and keep to the scheduled time.
]]

Editor: While I agree this is good info, I think it is not worth expanding the length of the document. (Also, if we did, I wonder if we’d need to say why this is an accessibility issue, rather than just good practice for all (like general usability :).) Remember that Judy commented that the document is already long and potentially overwhelming.

*EOWG for discussion*: Can we justify expanding the document to add this?

# Comment 10:

• Location: Use appropriate background and text colors
• Priority: medium, may need some discussion
• Text: entire section
• Comment: is this an accessibility requirement?
• Suggestion: may need to use a better example than "bold"

Editor: Yes, background and text color is a significant issue for people with some types of low vision. This was previously combined with “Use sufficient color contrast.” but then separated to keep each explanation simple.
Re: “...ensure that the weight of text is sufficient (for example, bold).” ummm – bold is the easiest way to have heavyweight text. I can’t think of a better example.

# Comment 11:

• Location: Use multiple communication modes
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: entire section
• Comment: unclear because "multiple communication modes" is jargon and the text does not really clarify what the speaker needs to do
• Suggestion: consider a different title and adding one or two more words about what it means for the speaker, that people have different learning modes/preferences

Editor: Humm - I think "Some people will learn better verbally, others with pictures and diagrams, and others with text." explains the possible jargon; and "Use multiple communication modes." tells the speaker what to do. I think adding more (such as: "Therefore, use speech, text, and images where possible.") would be unnecessary clutter and complexity.

EOWG for discussion: Any suggestions for less jargony title than "Use multiple communication modes"?

# Comment 12:

• Location: Offer slides, handouts, and other material in accessible formats
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: entire section
• Comment: to complex and hard to follow
• Suggestion: break up into individual steps, such as:

[[
* Provide alternative formats for slides, handouts, and other material.
Participants might need material in alternative formats such as large print or braille; however, if they get the material in advance electronically, they might not need it in print at all. Electronic formats such as HTML (that is, web page format) and RTF are often the most flexible to meet different people's needs.

* Ensure slides, handouts, and other electronic material is accessible.
Ensure your materials are accessible, for example, provide alternative text for images. [@@Web?HTML?Online?] Material should meet WCAG 2.0, at least Level AA. (Some other resources are listed under For More Information below.)
]]

Editor: Hummm - I'm not sure which is simplier.

EOWG for discussion: Is is better as is? Or split up as above? Or other?

# Comment 13:

• Location: Speak clearly
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: new text proposed
• Comment: add other aspects of speaking clearly
• Suggestion: "Avoid using jargon, explain acronyms and uncommon words, and speak slowly so that people understand you better"

Editor: I think these are two different points. In response to this and Comment 19 below I added a <dt>.

Added: Use simple language.
Avoid or explain jargon, acronyms, and idioms. For example, expressions such as "raising the bar" can be interpreted literally by some people with cognitive disabilities and can be confusing.

# Comment 14:

• Location: new (after "Describe other visual information")
• Priority: medium, may need some discussion
• Text: new text proposed
• Comment: what about sound?
• Suggestion:

[[
* Describe subtle audio information.
Describe subtle cues conveyed through audio. For example, explain the feedback cue that is expressed through a sound clip.
]]

Editor: Whatever method is used to provide auditory information for those who cannot hear it, should provide all audio info, e.g., sign language interpreter. (btw, I don’t understand “explain the feedback cue that is expressed through a sound clip.”) In any case, I think it is not worth expanding the length of the document for this point. Remember that Judy commented that the document is already long and potentially overwhelming.

*EOWG for discussion*: Can we justify expanding the document to add this?

# Comment 15:

• Location: new (after "Describe other visual information")
• Priority: medium, may need some discussion
• Text: new text proposed
• Comment: what about sound?
• Suggestion: add a new section about describing audio too, for example after playing a sound file (or demo'ing a screen reader etc.)

[[
* Expect the unexpected.
People have different needs and requirements; they may need to use magnifying glasses, photograph the screen, record your voice, leave the room, eat, or drink.
]]

Editor: This feels too general. I think it is not worth expanding the length of the document for this point. Remember that Judy commented that the document is already long and potentially overwhelming.

*EOWG for discussion*: Can we justify expanding the document to add this? If so, how can we reword it to be more specific?

# Comment 16:

• Location: Providing recording afterwards
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: new text proposed
• Comment: consider broadening beyond recordings alone
• Suggestion: add something about making the slides, handouts, and other material also available after the session.

Editor: We say earlier to provide material before the session, and to make it accessible. This section is only “Make media fully accessible.”

# Comment 17:

• Location: Make media fully accessible
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: "WCAG"
• Comment: previous link to the same page was called "WCAG 2.0" and did not have acronym tags
• Suggestion: unify both approaches

Editor: done.

# Comment 18:

• Location: Additional Benefits
• Priority: minor edit, editor's discretion
• Text: "Presentations that are accessible to people with disabilities have additional benefits. For example"
• Comment: say something brief about the larger audience reached by more inclusive presentations (even if this somewhat repeats the bcase doc)
• Suggestion: "Presentations that are accessible to people with disabilities are inclusive to many more audiences including people who are new to the subject matter, people who are not fluent in the language, or people who have varying learning styles. Accessible presentations also have additional benefits, including:"

Changed: “Presentations that are accessible to people with disabilities are inclusive to many more audiences, including people who are not fluent in the language and people with different learning styles. Accessible presentations also have additional benefits, including:”

# Comment 19:

• For speakers: Avoid or explain jargon and idiomatic expressions. Expressions such as "raising the bar" can be interpreted quite literally by some people with learning disabilities, causing confusion, and additional cognitive load.

Added: Use simple language.
Avoid or explain jargon, acronyms, and idioms. For example, expressions such as "raising the bar" can be interpreted literally by some people with cognitive disabilities and can be confusing.

# Comment 20:

• For speakers: Count to 5 slowly (to yourself) after asking the audience if they have any questions. People often need time to formulate their questions into words.

Editor: While I agree this is good info, I'm not sure it is worth expanding the length of the document. Remember that Judy commented that the document is already long and potentially overwhelming.

EOWG for discussion: Can we justify expanding the document to add this or not?
If yes, what's the simpliest way to do it? e.g., expand "Speak clearly." to "Speak clearly and slowly, and give the audience time to process information" and then under that add: "For example, when you ask the audience if they have any questions, some people with cognitive disabilities will need extra time to formulate their questions into words." Or other?

# Comment 21:

• For planners: Require microphone use by speakers. Frequently presenters are shy of the microphone and ask the audience if they can hear well enough. Sometimes people do not want to speak up to say they cannot hear well enough, especially as the speaker often asks the question is a louder voice than the rest of their talk.

Editor: We don't have a separate section for planners. We already have "Use a microphone. Even in a small room, some people might need the audio electronically, including people using ALD/hearing loop and remote CART writers."
While I agree the additional information about people not wanting to speak up if they can't hear well enough is good, I think it is probably not worth expanding the length of the document to add it.

EOWG for discussion: Can we justify expanding the document to add this or not?

# Comment 21:

• Be careful not to sound like CART is substitute for sign lanauge interpreter.

Changed: Put sign language before CART where they are togethering.

Added at end in terminology: "Note that sign langauges are different from spoken languages and there is not a one-to-one translation."