W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire EOWG Publication Approval – Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: shawn@w3.org,shadi+EOsurvey@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2019-10-11 to 2019-10-16.

14 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes Approval

1. Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes Approval

summary | by responder | by choice

The Scripts for Evaluation Videos has been updated, as detailed below. Please review the changes to confirm your satisfaction with the changes, and to approve its publication.

Summary of changes:

Abbreviate and refine several sequences throughout
Significant changes to Video 2, to improve flow

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
I agree with the changes and approve publication.	9
I'm OK with publication as is; please consider my comments below for Editors' discretion.	3
I will approve publication only after my comments below are addressed.	1
I need more time, and will complete the review by the date in the Comments field below.
I abstain and accept the decision of the group.	2

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder	Scripts for Evaluation Videos Changes Approval	Comments
Brent Bakken	I agree with the changes and approve publication.	Excellent!
Sylvie Duchateau	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Vicki Menezes Miller	I agree with the changes and approve publication.	Looking good!
Hidde de Vries	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Kevin White	I'm OK with publication as is; please consider my comments below for Editors' discretion.	Video 2: Seq 4: Is 'vendors' more US English? I would have used 'supplier'. Video 2: Seq 6: This seems to repeat what is said in Seq 3. Not sure if this is a problem, maybe just flagging it for editorial thought. Video 3: Seq 7: Still not 100% on CD/CI - we don't expand the acronym and it is specific to one audience. I don't think it is a huge problem... it just jars a wee bit. Happy to go with consensus on this. Video 3: Seq 9: I think there is a 'so' missing from this seq. What might I do about inaccurate results? 'Make sure to do some spot checks of results'? 'Make sure you plan for a full technical audit'? Video 4: Seq 4: Still think this is an 'or' not an 'and' … maybe an 'and/or'. For example it is often not realistic to consider an audit before procuring a product (too many products, not enough time). Video 5: Seq 3: 'Many approach accessibility as a checklist to meet' - might not be the right form, current form sounds a bit funny when read out. Video 5: Seq 10: Suggest change from 'end-users' to 'users'. Makes it more consistent with term elsewhere and also avoids the risk of missing out other potential system users.
Laura Keen	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Eric Eggert	I abstain and accept the decision of the group.	Only skimmed really quickly, didn’t notice anything significant.
Mark Palmer	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Shawn Lawton Henry	I'm OK with publication as is; please consider my comments below for Editors' discretion. I will approve publication only after my comments below are addressed.	I reviewed the Diff (thanks for that!). I didn't have the brain-power to review the full scripts again. --- Current wording: “Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system (C-M-S), code editor, or your deployment process, such as CD/CI.” [ED-med] -> Tools can be integrated into different work environments. For example, into your web browser, content management system (C-M-S), code editor, or development and deployment systems. [or … development and deployment tools. or … development and deployment processes.] Rationale: I was one who had the brainstorm that it might be OK to have "deployment and testing process (e.g., CI/CD)". Thinking more about it, I think we should not have an unexpanded acronym and it’s not worth all the words to write out CICD. I guess I’d be OK with it if we expand it in the written transcript. [!!] If we do leave it: s\|CD/CI\|C-I-C-D for the verbal script and CI/CD for the written transcript. [ED-low] Minor: I think can leave “code editor” out to make it shorter. --- Current: “For some checks it is easier to download an extension for your browser.” [ED-med] -> Some checks are easier if you have an extension for your browser. --- Current: “However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just cannot be automated and require your input.” [ED-low] -> something like: “However, tools can't do it all. Some accessibility checks just cannot be automated and require people with accessibility knowledge to evaluate. Rationale: It is highly likely that many of the listeners of this video will not have the knowledge to do evaluations, so “your input” doesn’t work. --- Current: “Also avoid relying too much on what tools say over addressing the real-life experience of your website users.” [ED-low] -> “… the real-life experiences of website users.” or -> “… the real-life experiences of your potential website users.” Rationale: “Our website doesn’t have any users with disabilities.” (“it's not like we have any disabled users anyway. I looked at the server logs, I should know.” https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/personas#primary :-) --- fyi: I really like some of these edits. Some I actually prefer the previous wording. Yet minor so It didn't comment. :-)
Lewis Phillips	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Helen Burge	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Kris Anne Kinney	I agree with the changes and approve publication.
Jennifer Chadwick	I'm OK with publication as is; please consider my comments below for Editors' discretion.	* location: Video 2: Preliminary Evaluation (~1.5 minutes). Sequence 2, Time 3-10 * current wording: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical, you can check some aspects of accessibility yourself. * suggested revision: Even if you are new to web accessibility and not technical, you can check some aspects of accessibility yourself. The tests can help you understand how people use the web and the adaptive strategies they use and become more familiar with assistive technology. location: Video 3: Selecting and Using Tools (~2 minutes). Sequence 9. Time 57-60. current wording: Be aware that tools can provide inaccurate results. * suggested revision: Be aware that tools can provide inaccurate results. This is because the check in the tool is written on code that might meet requirements, but might not match exactly how you have coded your site. A manual inspection may be necessary to validate that your code is also accessible and conforms to specific accessibility standards, if in a different way. An excellent resource! I'm very excited.
Howard Kramer	I abstain and accept the decision of the group.

View by choice

Choice	Responders
I agree with the changes and approve publication.	Brent Bakken Sylvie Duchateau Vicki Menezes Miller Hidde de Vries Laura Keen Mark Palmer Lewis Phillips Helen Burge Kris Anne Kinney
I'm OK with publication as is; please consider my comments below for Editors' discretion.	Kevin White Shawn Lawton Henry Jennifer Chadwick
I will approve publication only after my comments below are addressed.	Shawn Lawton Henry
I need more time, and will complete the review by the date in the Comments field below.
I abstain and accept the decision of the group.	Eric Eggert Howard Kramer