W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Collected WAI comments on the Mobile Web Best Practices Last Call

From: <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:05:09 +0000 (GMT)
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060412170509.CEEC766393@dolph.w3.org>

[Sorry for the duplicate]

  Dear Al Gilman ,

The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Mobile Web Best
Practices 1.0 published on 13 January 2006 Thank you for having taken the
time to review the document and to send us comments!

This message holds the disposition of the said comments on which the
Working Group has agreed. This disposition has been implemented in the new
version of the document available at:

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 3 May 2006. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a
specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
Recommendation Track.


For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group,
Philipp Hoschka
Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110400c0276d207e6d@[]
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/


Your comment on the document as a whole:
User Agent (browser) developers are participants in the mobile value

chain. The user agents for mobile devices should conform with UAAG

[1] guidelines as appropriate. This is especially true now that some

mobile devices have add-on assistive technology such as screen


The document's purpose is aimed more at content developers rather than

tools to render the content. Underlying this purpose is a continuing

discussion of the limitations of the devices and user agents involved

as screen size, color depth, input limitations, memory, etc.)

[linkage opportunity from WAI document]

(1) I can imagine a full version of the doc playing the same role in the

conformance model that WCAG does (i.e. as a standard that an authoring

guides the author towards conformance with). Perhaps a note to this effect

be put into ATAG 2.0.

[linkage opportunity from MWBP document]

(2) Clearly all the adaptive stuff in the doc would require authoring

support. Therefore, the Mobile Web group might consider putting in an

informative note about the role of authoring tools (and ATAG) just as

has. This is the text of the WCAG 2.0 note:


A large part of Web content is created using authoring tools. These tools

often determine how Web content is implemented, either by making

decisions directly or by limiting the choices available to the author. As

result, authoring tools will play an important role in creating Web

that conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. At the same

we recommend that all authors become familiar with the Guidelines because

will help in creating accessible content and coverage of the Guidelines

vary between tools.

Developers of authoring tools can help to make their tools more aware of

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines by following the Authoring Tool

Accessibility Guidelines. We encourage users and purchasers of authoring

to consider conformance to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines as

criterion when selecting tools.


Working Group Resolution:
We think that UAAG is out of scope as the document is about delivered
content rather than user agents.


Your comment on 3.1 Adaptation Implementation Model:
section 3.1

which ever content adaptation implementation model is used, the model must
retain necessary accessibility information (alt, label, etc.) and convey
that information to the mobile device and the user.

Working Group Resolution:
We have added the following note to the section on content adaptation:

"Whatever the adaptation model at work, the process of adaptation should
not diminish accessibility."


Your comment on [REDIRECTION] Do not...:
5.29 Refreshing, Redirection, and Spawned Windows

should reference

UAAG 2.4 Allow time-independent interaction (P1) - 1. For rendered

where user input is only possible within a finite time interval

by the user agent, allow configuration to provide a view where user

interaction is time-independent.

UAAG 3.5 Toggle automatic content retrieval (P1) 1. Allow configuration so
that the user agent only retrieves content on explicit user request.

Working Group Resolution:
We think this is out of scope since we are not addressing user agents in
the document.


Your comment on 5.3.7 Background Images:
5.3.7 Background Images

should reference

UAAG 3.1 Toggle background images (P1) - 1. Allow configuration not to

render background image content.

Working Group Resolution:
We have removed that Best Practice, since it didn't have a mobile-specific


Your comment on 5.4.3 Structural Elements:
5.4.3 Structural Elements

should reference

UAAG 10.4 Provide outline view (P2) - 1. Make available to the user an

"outline" view of rendered content, composed of labels for important

structural elements (e.g., heading text, table titles, form titles, and

other labels that are part of the content).

Working Group Resolution:
Out of scope since we are not addressing user agents in the document.

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:14:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC