W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-access@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Accessibility document [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS]

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:55 +0100
Message-ID: <79cab0900711280414wce9fabevc0bc9a34b4db6fce@mail.gmail.com>
To: miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org
Cc: "Mobile Web Accessibility Task Force" <public-bpwg-access@w3.org>, "MWI MWBP Member List" <member-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Miguel,

Thanks for your input. I have removed the comment and changed the text
(not yet online) to the following:

[updated text]
How does it help especially users with disabilities?: While this BP is
primarily motivated by the limitations of the input mechanism of the
mobile device (for example, a small numeric keypad), it also helps
users who have difficulty using their chosen input device.

Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?: If default values are used this
ensures compliance with checkpoint 10.4 "Until user agents handle
empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in
edit boxes and text areas" for the controls concerned. However, there
is debate about the need for such text, as user agents do now handle
empty input boxes correctly.
[end updated text]

Perhaps we should remove the last sentence "However, there is debate
about the need for such text, as user agents do now handle empty input
boxes correctly"? This document isn't really the place to debate
whether the checkpoint is obsolete or not.

best regards,

Alan

[1] http://juicystudio.com/article/default-place-holding-characters.php
On 28/11/2007, Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> WCAG 1.0 refers to place-holding text while MWBP refers to default values.
> Default values could be used as place-holing text (instead of "Your name here" it could be "Miguel") with no drawback. But [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS] doesn't guarantee compliance with WCAG 10.4 checkpoint as default values are required only on suitable controls whereas place-holding text are required in all controls.
>
> The comment should be included in the text pointing out they are diferent checkpoints.
>
> Miguel
>
>
> >>-----Mensaje original-----
> >>De: public-bpwg-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-access-
> >>request@w3.org] En nombre de Alan Chuter
> >>Enviado el: miƩrcoles, 28 de noviembre de 2007 12:02
> >>Para: Mobile Web Accessibility Task Force; MWI MWBP Member List
> >>Asunto: Re: [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS] (was 'Summary table in section 3')
> >>
> >>
> >>I have inserted an explanation that should maybe included directly in
> >>the text. the BP is incorrect. What do other people think about this?
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Alan
> >>
> >>
> >>[1]
> >>http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-
> >>mwbp-wcag-20071125#PROVIDE_DEFAULTS
> >>
> >>On 17/10/2007, David Torres <dtorres@technosite.es> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> In the summary table of the Section 3 [1], How Mobile Best Practices can
> >>> Benefit Users with Disabilities, I get confused because the checkpoint
> >>> 10.4 has no relation with the MWBP [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS] and, however, in
> >>> Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 document that relation exists.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-
> >>mwb
> >>> p-wcag-20071017
> >>>
> >>> David Torres Leal
> >>> Consultor
> >>> Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
> >>> Tlf: 93 238 71 32
> >>> Fax: 93 415 04 62
> >>> www.technosite.es
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Email: achuter@technosite.es
> >>Blogs
> >>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619
>
>
>


-- 
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Blogs
http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 12:15:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:32 GMT