Re: minor comments on Business Case document

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Arch wrote:
> Thanks Shadi - see inline below:
> 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> First of all, thank you for addressing my previous comments. I think 
>> these changes are great.
>>
>> Please find below some additional minor comments on the Business Case 
>> for your consideration:
>>
>> ## Overview
>> - validation error (simple ID name mismatch)
> 
> Validated for me :)

OK, we are using different validation tools. Please see line 259:
  - <a name="realted" id="related" shape="rect">


>> - s/The Web is increasingly an essential resource many aspects of 
>> life/The Web is increasingly an essential resource in many aspects of 
>> life (typo - forgot "in")
> 
> Done - but used 'for' rather than 'in'
> 
>> - consider a different word for "recoup" (not very common word)
> 
> Retained for now - 'recoup' is a common EN business term. I considered 
> 'recover' but subtly different and broader.

For me, the term "recoup" means making up for something that is lost. 
Something more positive could be more motivating. Editor's discretion.


>> - s/so too do their business cases/so do their business cases
> 
> Retained for now - it was LisaP's editorial suggestion which I think 
> adds emphasis to the differences that arise. If SLH & SAZ insisit I 
> _could_ accept changing this.

I'll leave this to you and Shawn as native speakers (and maybe others 
too). It was difficult for me to read. Editor's discretion.


>> ## Social Factors
>> - s/including older people with age-related impairments/including 
>> people with age-related functional limitations ("impairment" 
>> unnecessary here)
> 
> Was 'Done' - retained after EO discussion
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/29-eo-minutes.html#item02
> 
>> - s/To estimate how many people are affected by Web accessibility is 
>> difficult/It is difficult to estimate how many people are affected by 
>> Web accessibility (I personally think it is easier to read this way)
> 
> Trying "Estimating how many people are affected by Web accessibility is
> difficult because ..."

Works better for me. Just curious what was the motivation for changing 
the initial wording in the first place?


>> - s/Overlap with Design for Older Users/Overlap with Older Users Needs
> 
> Done - based on follow-up emails where Shadi said "Don't want to reduce 
> Web accessibility requirements to design alone. A lot of our findings 
> relate to tools and services being inaccessible."
> 
>> - consider "vision/hearing/physical/cognitive decline" rather than the 
>> term "impairment" in the bullets of "Overlap with Design for Older 
>> Users" (reduce use of the term (label) "impairment" where possible)
> 
> Done - but after EO discussion should impairment be retained?
> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/29-eo-minutes.html#item02

I personally like these changes. We are talking about Web accessibility 
guidelines addressing older peoples needs. These may not be necessarily 
impairments that constitute a disability in the usual sense. Even very 
mild vision or cognitive decline can be well assisted by a better level 
of usability that is promoted by the Web accessibility guidelines.

Note: later on when we are talking about specific benefits and mapping 
these to Success Criteria, then talking about the actual impairments as 
per EO discussion seems more sensible (see below).


>> - s/The accessibility provisions that make the Web accessible provide 
>> many benefits for people experiencing impairments due to the ageing 
>> process/The accessibility provisions that make the Web accessible 
>> provide many benefits for people experiencing impairments due to the 
>> ageing process, even though they may not be regarded as having a 
>> disability (we first say that "people with disabilities includes older 
>> people with functional decline", then we say that "accessibility also 
>> benefits people without disabilities including older people" -- trying 
>> to qualify it here, and make the relationships very clear)
> 
> Done - good suggestion
> 
>> - s/Older people with age-related visual deterioration benefit 
>> from/Older people with visual decline benefit from
>> - s/Older people with diminished fine motor control benefit from/Older 
>> people with reduced fine motor control benefit from
>> - s/Older people with hearing loss benefit from/Older people with 
>> hearing decline benefit from
> 
> Done somewhat:
>  - visual deterioration > deteriorating vision
>  - diminished fine motor control > reduced dexterity
>  - 'hearing loss' retained

Yes, I agree with this based on the EO discussion.

PS: note typo s/dexterityl/dexterity


>> - consider adding something about cognitive disabilities in 
>> sub-section "Access for Older People", even if you just deffer to the 
>> "Access for People with Low Literacy and People Not Fluent in the 
>> Language" which has the relevant Success Criteria and Checkpoint mappings
> 
> Done

Do we want to use "limitations" or "impairment" or "decline" here? I 
vote for "decline". Also, consider the following change:

s/Older people with cognitive limitations will benefit from similar 
aspects as those those with low literacy/Older people with cognitive 
decline will benefit from similar aspects as people with low literacy 
and people not fluent in the language.

Rationale:
  - corrected "those those" in the sentence
  - removed the term "those" to be inclusive
  - added "people not fluent in language" to reflect the section title 
and to avoid any myth about older people having lower literacy


>> ## Financial Factors
>> - validation error (simple ID name mismatch)
> 
> Validated for me :)

Line 344:
  - <a name="atl-format" id="alt-format" shape="rect">


>> - s/Testing design ideas and early prototypes with users with 
>> disabilities and older users, and including assistive 
>> technologies/Testing design ideas and early prototypes with users with 
>> disabilities and older users, and with assistive technologies
> 
> Done

Thanks for addressing my suggestions.


Best,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Received on Saturday, 30 May 2009 09:08:03 UTC