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

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

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:01:08 +0100
Message-ID: <79cab0900710290601s760990c3k85f4395dfb4cbbc8@mail.gmail.com>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "Mobile Web Accessibility Task Force" <public-bpwg-access@w3.org>
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."

> Use case or purpose to "Spread awareness" between one group and the
> other.
I've included a use case: "A trainer is giving a course on Web
accessibility to a group of mobile Web sepcialists and wishes (a) to
understand accessibility in the mobile context and (b) avoid repeating
information the students already know." and in the Introduction
"Specialists in the &ldquo;Web accessibility&rdquo; or &ldquo;mobile
Web&rdquo; fields may be unaware of the importance of the other and
have difficulty communicating. This document can spread awareness and
improve communication by helping specialists in different fields
understand that their concerns are often related and parallel. It
should help trainers teaching students already experienced in another
field using terminology and concepts they are familiar with and
without repeating material they already know."

> In Scope section: Put positive elements before the negative.
"This document describes the relationships, overlaps and differences
between [MWBP] and [WCAG]. It also describes the relationships between
content characteristics and the effects these have on users with
disabilities in all contexts and all users in the mobile context.
Web accessibility for people with disabilities is beyond the scope of
this document except where it especially affects mobile users. It is
described in [WCAG]. The needs of users in the mobile Web context is
beyod the scope of this document except where it especially affects
users with disabilities. It is described in [MWBP].
This document does not create any further requirements beyond those
defined in the [MWBP] and [WCAG]."

> Section on how people with disabilities use mobiles, and explain (to
> non-accessibility people) that they do a lot (Sylvie).
Added a placeholder for this section as it requires more research.Any
pointers to further information to me by email please...

> 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."

> Explain why based it's on WCAG 1.0.
At the time of writing there is a draft of the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [WCAG20]. The [MWBP] make direct
reference to WCAG 1.0 and many of the concepts described relate
directly to those in that version. Like WCAG 1.0, MWBP 1.0 assumes
content in HTML. At the time of writing WCAG 1.0 is the most widely
used and understood. For these reasons this document makes reference
to WCAG version 1.0. When new versions of referenced documents become
accepted as W3C Recommendations, new versions of this document will be
necesary as described in the section Longevity and Versioning in this
document.

To be continued...

regards,

Alan

On 26/10/2007, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote:
>
> I think these are the main points that we discussed. Many of them are not
> recorded in the minutes. They haven't been incorporated into the document
> yet although there is an updated version online [1].
>
> * Include the term "business case" as that is largely what the document is
> about, not just technical feasibility.
> * Use case or purpose to "Spread awareness" between one group and the
> other.
> * In Scope section: Put positive elements before the negative.
> * Section on how people with disabilities use mobiles, and explain (to
> non-accessibility people) that they do a lot (Sylvie).
> * Include a summary in a list or one paragraph, to sell the document. At
> the beginning.
> * Explain why based it's on WCAG 1.0.
> * Use case of advocacy group arguing for adoption of WCAG for mobile-aware
> site, to justify no undue effort is involved.
> * Include policy makers and guideline writers explicitly in use cases
> * Include a high level overview or slides for talks.
> * Try breaking up the document so you only get the version or overlaps
> you're interested in. For example depending on your starting point WCAG or
> MWBP. rather trying to have it all in the one document.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest
>
> regards,
>
> --
> Alan Chuter
> Accessibility Consultant
> Technosite (Fundación ONCE)
> achuter@technosite.es
> www.technosite.es
> Tel. +34 91 121 03 35
> Skype: achuter1
>
> If you are unable to reply to this message because of spam filter, try my
> alternative address achuter.technosite@yahoo.com.
>
> Si no puede contestar a este mensaje por culpa del filtro de spam, intente
> con mi dirección alternativa achuter.technosite@yahoo.com.
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 13:01:22 GMT

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