Accessibility Intros Notes

From Education & Outreach

Nav: EOWG wiki main page

2018 work


Changes since 30 January

  • Changed "Web accessibility is required by law in some cases."
    to "Web accessibility is required by law in many situations." (per 26)
  • Summary at top: (related to 6)
    • Changed "Introduction" to "Summary" and moved to the top.
    • Added two sentences — the last two below:

      When websites and web tools are properly designed and coded, people with disabilities can use them. However, currently many sites and tools are developed with accessibility barriers that make them difficult or impossible for some people to use.
      Making the web accessible benefits individuals, businesses, and society. International web standards define what is needed for accessibility.

  • moved Related Resource into visual box
  • Changes to Accessibility is Important... section in response to GitHub 25:
    • Deleted "An accessible Web can also help people with disabilities more actively participate in society." (While it is a good point, I think it's not worth the text given good coverage of the broad issue in the rest of that section.)
    • bullet-ed end of: "Accessibility supports social inclusion for people with disabilities as well as others, such as older people, people in rural areas, and people in developing countries."
  • Added "(YouTube)" to link: Web Accessibility Perspectives Video (YouTube)
  • Video thumbnails: added arrow and resized. Note: plan to make a little smaller.

Changes since 18 January

(most recent first)

  • additional content and edits to Making the Web Accessible section to address 19 and 20
  • made "More Info on Evaluating" a list. (I know one item list is not cool; however, *all* 5 other "More info" boxes are lists, and it looks better indented, so I think best overall in this case.)
  • fixed spelling error: customizeable -> customizable
  • minor edit under Making the Web Accessible
    • "These are considered the international standard for web accessibility; for example, WCAG 2.0 is also an ISO standard: ISO/IEC 40500." minor change to:
      "These are considered international standards for web accessibility; for example, WCAG 2.0 is also an ISO standard: ISO/IEC 40500."
  • under Evaluating Accessibility:
    • "Simple techniques such as changing settings in a browser can determine if a web page meets some accessibility guidelines." changed to:
      "Simple steps, such as changing settings in a browser, can help you evaluate some aspects of accessibility."
    • "A comprehensive evaluation to determine if a site meets all accessibility guidelines is much more complex." minor change to:
      "Comprehensive evaluation to determine if a website meets all accessibility guidelines takes more effort."
  • filled in Page Contents
  • moved first video still under its text link, per issue 18


  • Relationship with related document on main W3C website: Accessibility - W3C is there for people browsing the W3C site. Based on input so far, we want to have an Intro page on the WAI website, and we don't want to point them to the other page on the W3C main site in order to get different information. Therefore, the WAI Intro page includes the info from the W3C page.

10 January Review Questions

Imagine what newbies to web accessibility need to know... what are the key things you want to tell them... think of different people in very different types of roles, organizations, countries, etc...

  • Is there information missing that we might want to include? fyi, here is some of the text that was cut
  • Is there information there that we might not want to include, or significantly tersify?
  • Your thoughts on "definition" of web accessibility (GitHub 3)?
  • The page has lots of links throughout to other resources. This draft has some rough ideas for making those "more info:" links less interruptive of the overall flow. Thoughts on approaches?

2017 work

Review Team: James Green, Sharron Rush, Sylvie Duchateau, Kris Anne Kinney, Amanda Mace, Vicki Menezes Miller, Norah Sinclair, Stéphane Deschamps

Revision Plan

Note: Editing and Review Teams were asked for input on 21 July, and it was listed in Work for this Week for many weeks. NOt all have replied, per below.

[done!] W3C page

WAI page

Originally, we thought we might replace this page with the content from the W3C page. However, reviewers commented that they found the more in-depth information useful, so we now plan to keep the WAI page, and revise it to be updated and tersified. {W3C WAI} same content for W3C main site and WAI sub-site? #3, {WAI} existing WAI content #4

Review #1

21 July e-mail {Intro doc} Ready for Review #1

Review status:

  • Sharron Rush
  • Amanda Mace
  • James Green - reviewed W3C page and provided edit suggestions; comments on other issues pending; waiting for revision before provided edit suggestions on WAI page
  • Kris Anne Kinney - done (sorry I didn't know to tag this)
  • Stéphane Deschamps - done 4 Aug
  • Sylvie Duchateau - done 27 July
  • Norah Sinclair - done 25 July - comment/issue replies are pending Norah's response
  • Vicki Menezes Miller - done 26 July

Old Info


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}