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

Re: BP THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY and WCAG

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:57:14 +0200
Message-ID: <46EE4F7A.8000908@w3.org>
To: achuter@technosite.es
CC: Mobile Web Accessibility Task Force <public-bpwg-access@w3.org>, David Rooks <drooks@segala.com>, Paul Walsh <paul@segala.com>, "bruno@vonniman.com" <bruno@vonniman.com>, WAI Coordination Group <w3c-wai-cg@w3.org>

Hi Alan,

As I'm missing the background, I'm not really sure what you are trying 
to do. Is your intention to explain how the Mobile Web Best Practices 
relate to the requirements of people with disabilities on the Web? In 
this case it may be better to avoid direct comparison to WCAG 1.0 as we 
hope it will be superseded in due course. In the specific example below 
you could further highlight the benefit of "One Web" and the impact of 
creating separate pages for content authors but also for end-users 
rather than citing CP 11.4 (which is too often used as an excuse).

Anyway, I think this is very interesting and important work. I've CC'ed 
the WAI Coordination Group to raise it to their attention. Hopefully a 
WAI WG can allocate some time to review a first Working Draft of this 
work rather than look at the individual bits piece by piece.

Thank you for continuing to promote accessibility in the MWI!

Regards,
   Shadi


Alan Chuter wrote:
> I've created a working copy to allow quick updates [1], prior to 
> incorporation in the editor's draft.
> 
> As the most obvious part to start at is the beginning, I've begin by 
> adding THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY [3]. My first attempt isn't very inspired as 
> there does seem to be a relationship except with 11.4 [2] on alternative 
> pages. How does THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY assist users with disabilities? 
> Comments and more ideas please.
> 
> [cite]
> This BP encourages content providers to make content accessible to as 
> wide a range of devices and users as possible. It contemplates the use 
> of alternative pages only as a last resort. In this respect it relates 
> to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 11.4, “If, after best efforts, you cannot create 
> an accessible  page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C 
> technologies, is accessible, has equivalent  information (or 
> functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) 
> page. [Priority 1].” In MWBP the alternative page or URI is to provide 
> for device limitations while in WCAG it is to provide for user limitations.
> Not complying with this best practice but complying with WCAG checkpoint 
> 11.4 will be very difficult as each new device-specific version will 
> require 2n versions of the content.
> [end cite]
> 
> [1] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dftkhw2k_19gcvjvh
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-alt-pages
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 09:57:41 GMT

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