Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

Accessibility Intros Notes

From Education & Outreach
Revision as of 20:42, 17 March 2014 by Shawn (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Nav: EOWG wiki main page

here is a template for comment formatting:

  • ...comment {name}


We now have three resources that provide introductions:


  • EOWG 27 July 2012 - Summary: The audience is a little different for each, and it is appropriate to have information targeted to different audiences. The WAI one is old and not as good as the others. Let's look at what to do with that one. Concern with having the main pointer for our Web Accessibility Intro material be the W3C site rather than the WAI site.


Should we merge? Replace? Duplicate? other?

  • ...comment {name}

Proposal for discussion


  • Maybe a combination of Accessibility - W3C and Web Accessibility Basics? Then I think we have covered what is in the old WAI introduction{Helle}
  • ...comment {name}


need to get rid of the google workshop ad section and the aria tangent

Comments on specific documents

  • Introduction to Web Accessibility on WAI website, from 2005
    • ancient analysis & changelog
    • The message is good, but the language is a bit stiff. "More specifically..." at the very start is a bit off putting and there are too many lists of words. Also, the introduction of benefits to people without disabilities may be beside the point as we move toward a greater understanding of the civil rights aspects of equal access.{Sharron}
    • I agree with Sharron about the message and the languagewould be good if we could make it shorter and not try to include everything and everybody in order not to have forgotten a specific group or a disability Think this was also discussed ehrn we first made the text. Not sure we should skip the part about people without disability due to better understanding of civil rights, but have to look at the arguments, are they stllvalid?{Helle}
  • Accessibility - W3C on W3C main website
    • analysis
    • I like this one from W3C main site best, it feels upbeat and somehow has a sense that Accessibility is inclusive and relevant to mainstream rather than old style 'special'(a term that has got overused in the UK to the point of being negative) {-Suzette}
    • I agree with Suzette about the upbeat positive message. However, if we are trying to condense to only one place where we introduce accessibility, may want a bit more about the WAI resources. {Sharron}
    • Think this is better like Sharron and Suzette. Suggest that we look at combining "Web Accessibility Initiative" and "Learn More" into one section, and skip the rest{Helle}
  • Web accessibility basics (from Web Accessibility Basics)
    • analysis notes
    • This is good, seems to be a combination of sections of the previous two. It leads from the broad general notion that everyone relates to - the web as a universal means of communication - to the civil rights aspect of inclusion. {Sharron}
    • This is very good, but not sure if it is right for this purpose(what is it?). we would have to cut in the text. e.g. the exsamples from "How people with disabilties use the web" is to much in an introduction I think.{Helle}