[UA-discuss] Document Review: UASG011 Frequently Asked Questions

[Roberto Gaetano]

I will go again through all docs over the weekend, but have one first comment.
I fully agree that the bulk of the UA work - and probably the hardest part - is about non-ASCII scripts, but maybe we should also mention problems that manifest themselves for ASCII email addresses and domain names. To name one, in some applications TLDs that are longer than 3 chars are still rejected, in spite of the long time since the first introduction of some of them in 2000. This aspect is missing in the FAQ when we seem to imply that the only benefit will be for support of non-ASCII scripts.
Cheers,
Roberto


On 01.03.2019, at 00:01, Tex <textexin at xencraft.com<mailto:textexin at xencraft.com>> wrote:

Don, thanks for asking.

I think we can do much better than that document.
Besides being redundant in several places, it asks questions which it then does not answer. For example, it asks about disadvantages and then offers advantages.
It uses UA-ready without defining it.

It often talks about expanding the internet, which I think for most readers is  of no consequence (not my job).
On the other hand it buries the more significant argument which is the enablement of users that are not English or ASCII literate.

It is also rather geeky in describing UA as a “technical compliance process”, rather than using more approachable language.

Asking about which companies are UA-ready seems inappropriate since the large companies mentioned will almost never be fully UA-ready, as they have so many applications.
It would be better to identify software systems they offer that we can say are UA-ready.

We should use links everywhere we mention a document rather than pointing at the containing directory.

Rather than listing companies that are members, we should have a link to the list of members. That way the document doesn’t need to be updated as the list changes and it might encourage others to join.

So fwiw, I would replace the faq with something like the attached. I tried to be more direct, more approachable, and have more compelling arguments.
The contents I removed, I did so intentionally. (Apologies if I removed someone’s favorite item.)

Feel free to disagree or dismiss outright.
It might benefit from a few statistics – eg number of TLDs in each language or script, and some examples of important cases. (China, India, etc. with large markets, etc.)

I hope that helps.
tex




From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Hollander
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 3:59 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [UA-discuss] Document Review: UASG011 Frequently Asked Questions

We have this FAQ published at https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/UASG011-160823-en-faq-digital.pdf

I’d very much welcome comments from the community about this – whether you think it’s fine as it is or whether things have progressed since we last updated this in 2016 or whether there are fresh questions that should be included.

If you need a deadline, let’s aim for the 5th of March.

Don



Don Hollander
Secretary General – UASG
Skype: Don_Hollander

<UASG011 Universal Acceptance-tex.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190301/1de7d241/attachment.html>