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

Re: Summary of last weeks discussion of Mobile Web Best Practices Accessibility document

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:22:12 +0100
To: "Alan Chuter" <achuter@technosite.es>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "Mobile Web Accessibility Task Force" <public-bpwg-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t2iijakgwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:01:08 +0100, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>  
wrote:

> I'm updating the document with some of the points discussed (not all
> due to lack of time today) but it won't be online for a few days so
> here are the changes I've made.
>
>> Include the term "business case" as that is largely what the document is
>> about, not just technical feasibility.
> "It attempts to provide a basis for building the business case for
> adopting either the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 or the
> Mobile Web Best Practices in a web site that already complies with
> one. For accessibility, the Web Accessibility Initiative provides a
> guidance document Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for
> Your Organization."

I would like to note that I still do not consider this document's primary  
purpose should be to build a business case, but about the technical  
requirements. I am happy that the use cases include referencing this  
document as a basis to build a business case. But an advocacy case is not,  
a priori, a business case, and I think suggesting that the two can be  
conflated diminishes the apparent value of the document.

>> Include a summary in a list or one paragraph, to sell the document. At
>> the beginning.
> I've included a first paragraph (for the now in the Abstract) as an
> attempt at a short sales pitch to get people to read on. The intention
> is to directly hook different reader profiles:
> "If you are a mobile Web designer you may not be very aware of the
> need to give special consideration to the needs of people with
> disabilities, or even that they use mobile devices to access the Web.
> If you have a disability and access the Web with your mobile device
> you may not be aware that there are guidelines other than WCAG that
> improve your experience of the Web. If you work in the field of
> disability or Web accessibility you may know of the existence of the
> Mobile Web Best Practices but not be aware that they can improve
> accessibility for people with disabilities, or that with a little
> extra effort or insight those best practices could make an even
> greater difference. This document describes the relationship."

I suggest removing the phrase "the need to give special consideration to".  
Many developers are aware of this, and think that the special  
consideration is somehow complex and will make their lives difficult.  
Precisely those developers are generally unaware of what those needs  
actually are, and how they could probably meet a great deal of them  
without a great deal of work - which might motivate them to look more  
favourably on the few that might be more challenging in their particular  
context.

I would also suggest having the current "abstract" as an introduction.  
Instead, I propose the following brief abstract to appear before the table  
of contents:

"This document describes the ways in which content that conforms to either  
MWBP or WCAG already achieves partial conformance to the other. It  
explains the similarities and differences at the level of individual  
requirements, and which requirements are specific to one or other  
document."

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 17:22:58 GMT

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