Re: Accessibility document Quick reference guide MWBP-WCAG

Hi Miguel, Charles, All,

The latest draft (0g) includes this idea. It develops into several
sections, each with several levels.

These are the new sections:
*  Extending from MWBP to WCAG 1.0
*  Extending from MWBP to WCAG 2.0
*  Extending from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0
*  Extending from WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0

The most complete is "Extending from MWBP to WCAG 1.0" in [1]. Each is
divided into the WCAG priority or level, in one case aimed for and in
the other already achieved (mercifully MWBP has no levels). The
checkpoints are divided into three categories:

*  Nothing: Content already complies with these checkpoints so no
further effort is necessary.
* Something: More effort of some kind is necessary to comply with
these checkpoints.
* Everything: MWBP do not cover this aspect at all, it is necessary to
comply with these checkpoints from scratch.

Is this what you had in mind? Is it going to be useful structured like this?

regards,

Alan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20071203#how_mwbp_wcag



On 29/11/2007, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote:
> > ... There are cases
> > where you have to do something specific beyond the requirements of
> > mobileBP to meet the requirements of the relevant checkpoint in WCAG,
>
> I think that this is the case for nearly most of the BPs; there are
> very few that do map directly to a WACG checkpoint, so the list is
> quite short.
>
> However, as I said yesterday, in section 4, "Does it give me WCAG
> compliance?" there is a list: "To summarise, for WCAG 1.0, compliance
> with MWBP ensures that content already complies with checkpoints...
> with no further effort, while ... simply do not apply. With some extra
> effort or simply considering different user needs, it is quite
> feasible to also comply with ..." which is an accurate summary
> (although it's out of date). Although it perhaps isn't made clear,
> with that information a developer can happily say "So I already
> complied with all these
> checkpoints without knowing it; maybe now I'll go a little further and
> aim for the others, too."
>
> I think that that list is the basis for what Miguel is proposing, "If
> your page complies with MWBP [mOK is not in the scope] and you want to
> comply with WCAG 1.0 Level A... you have already complied with
> checkpoints xxx, and almost with xxx, so you need to now comply with
> these xxx". I think that such a list would be useful for people to see
> at a glance what may lie ahead, and how much effort is involved.
>
>
>
> On 28/11/2007, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:05:08 +0100, Miguel Garcia
> > <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In a previous mail I talked about including a summary table with the
> > > mapping between MWBP and WCAG in the document.
> > >
> > > My idea is to extend the table so it becomes a quick guide of how to
> > > make a mobile OK Basic (and later Pro) compliance page conforms to WCAG
> > > 1.0.
> > >
> > > I have attached just a outline because I'm not sure if this document is
> > > interesting to the group.
> >
> > I think this is a good thing. I am not sure if it should be in the same
> > document, or whether we should break the documents out. There are cases
> > where you have to do something specific beyond the requirements of
> > mobileBP to meet the requirements of the relevant checkpoint in WCAG, so
> > it could become a big document (it should also link to techniques or the
> > relevant WCAG checkpoint at least) - especially if we do the inverse as
> > well (which would also be good).
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Chaals
> >
> > --
> > Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
> >      je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
> > http://my.opera.com/chaals              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha
> >
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Blogs
http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:27:30 UTC