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: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:42:59 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070607193654.0388ad10@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: mike@w3.org
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Dear Michael Smith,

At 18:11 7/06/2007, mike@w3.org wrote:
>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.
>
>Thanks,
>
>For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group,
>Michael(tm) Smith
>W3C Staff Contact
>
>  1.
>http://www.w3.org/mid/6.2.5.6.2.20070212182640.0292fd40@esat.kuleuven.be
>  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.

I agree with the resolution.


>----
>
>Your comment on 3.9 IMAGES_RESIZING and IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE:
> > 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.

Thank you for the clarification.


>----
>
>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.

I agree with the resolution.


>----
>
>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.

I agree with the resolution.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 17:43:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 June 2012 12:13:30 GMT