W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Comments on W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 January 2007

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:11:54 +0000
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1HwKaY-0002dc-JT@wiggum.w3.org>

 Dear Christophe Strobbe ,

The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 published on 30 Jan 2007. Thank you for having taken the time to
review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR /2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 22 June 2007. 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,
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contact

 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/


Your comment on 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH (partial) and REDIRECTION:
> The draft states: "This test does not determine whether the user is 
> able to opt out of refresh."
> Is the possibility of opting out going to be covered elsewhere?
> Using <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="..." /> fails three 
> different success criteria of the Web Content Accessibility 
> Guidelines 2.0 (see failure F40 in "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" [2]). 
> This is because screen readers will start reading from the top of the 
> page again when the page refreshes, thereby taking away control from 
> the user over his interaction with a page.
> Server-side redirects [3] are preferable, but WCAG 2.0 currently also 
> allows client-side redirects if they have no timeout: see techniques 
> G110 (Using an instant client-side redirect [4]) and H76 (Using meta 
> refresh to create an instant client-side redirect [5]).

Working Group Resolution:
Yes, opt out will be covered in the test that is part of mobileOK Pro
since this part of the test is not machine verifiable. We acknowledge the
undesirability of refresh from a WCAG point of view but the functionality
has been discussed at length in the WG and is desirable from a mobile
point of view.


> This prohibits the definition of image size in style sheets [6]. Is 
> that intentional or an oversight?

Working Group Resolution:
This is intentional. The best practice is to define the size of image in
MARKUP so that the browser can allocate the right amount of space when it
initially renders the document. Markup in style sheets can mean that the
browser needs to re-render the page on receipt of the style sheet.


Your comment on 3.14 NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES (partial):
> The draft states: "This test does not determine whether the 
> alternative text is meaningful." Why not? Doesn't a meaningless text 
> alternative defeat the purpose of the alt attribute?
> Note that the current working draft of WCAG 2.0 requires: "text 
> alternatives serve the same purpose and present the same information 
> as the non-text content. If text alternatives cannot serve the same 
> purpose, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the 
> non-text content" (this is just part of success criterion 1.1.1 [7]).

Working Group Resolution:
The test for meaningful text will come in mobileOK Pro, not mobileOK
Basic. Basic can only test if it's present and not empty since it consists
of machine-verifiable tests.


Your comment on 3.24 TABLES_LAYOUT (partial):
> The draft states: "This test does not catch all cases where tables 
> are used for layout purposes." I agree. "Techniques for WCAG 2.0" 
> also has a test for layout tables [8]:
> "Check for layout tables: determine whether the content has a 
> relationship with other content in both its column and its row. If 
> 'no,' the table is a layout table. If 'yes,' the table is a data
> table."
> Would that be a better fit? Obviously, the test from WCAG 2.0 cannot 
> be automated.

Working Group Resolution:
This text may be valuable for a human test specified in mobileOK Pro, but
not for machine tests in mobileOK Basic.

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 16:12:10 UTC

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