W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: mobileOK Pro 1st Draft

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:59:24 +0100
To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1204880364.26655.55.camel@localhost>

Hi Kai,

Le vendredi 07 mars 2008 à 09:29 +0100, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich a écrit :
> I would like to remind everybody that there is a draft of the mobileOK
> Pro document, to be found at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080228
>  
> I would appreciate if you would review this document and offer some
> feedback for the TF.

Just looking at the first few tests:
* Access keys: 
        - "Where there are elements, particularly navigation links and
        form controls, that would benefit from access keys:"
How does one determine that there are such elements?
        - "if access keys are not indicated effectively":
What does it mean to be indicated "effectively"? For instance, is it
enough to have a page on the site that lists you access keys? or do they
need to be indicated on the page itself? 
        - "If the usage of access keys is not consistent across a given
        page and site"
How do you determine what constitutes a site? How many number of pages
in the site to you need to check to determine this consistency?

* Auto-refresh:
        - "there is no link provided to another instance of the content
        which does not refresh"
The difficult you'll encounter with this type of test is that a link can
be buried in the middle of a great number of other links, or signaled
with an unclear language, etc.

* Avoid Free text
        - "If there are one or more free text input fields: Could they
        be converted into any of:"
I think this test doesn't give enough criteria to decide whether it
could or not.
        - "if data has been entered previously"
This is also going to be pretty hard to test...

* Background images
        "Where there is a background image, if perceiving content in the
        foreground is not easy under normal daylight conditions:"
Again, this seems too fuzzy; it's not clear what normal daylight
conditions are, nor what it means to be "easy to perceive", and this
also strongly depends on the device used to make the test.

I could probably make similar remarks for most of the following tests;
generally speaking, while I think they are certainly improvements to the
existing "what to test" sections in the BP doc, I think they remain too
vague for "minimiz[ing] the variance of results produced through
subjective tests" as the charter of the task force calls for.

HTH,

Dom
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 09:00:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 March 2008 09:00:01 GMT