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

RE: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:42:42 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4D16E54@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <achuter.technosite@yahoo.com>, "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

I am all for simplifying it and making the document(s) more useful.

But forgive me, I am not sure what this proposal means. How many
documents do we end up with in total? What is the subject matter of each
of them? I'd like to think that we could treat WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 in the
same documents and so reduce the overall number of documents as well as
complexity and possible confusion for the audience.

Thanks
Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Alan Chuter
> Sent: 14 March 2008 17:34
> To: EOWG; MWI BPWG Public
> Subject: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document
> 
> 
> For those who were not on the call: It became apparent that something
> was very wrong with this page of the document [1]. There was no
> agreement on whether it was for going from MWBP to WCAG or the
> reverse.
> 
> Following our discussion, and having stood back from the document for
> a while I realised what I believe is the problem is that the documents
> are structured around the mapping, not around what people are going to
> use it for. For each BP there are two paragraphs:
> 
> 1. How does it especially help users with disabilities?
> 2. Does it help meet any WCAG 2.0 success criteria?
> 
> While these appear to be slightly different takes on the same thing, I
> think that they are quite different
> 
> 1. Is about the accessibility benefits of MWBP and the case for
> adopting from MWBP starting from WCAG  (I've done WCAG, what is the
> accessibility justification for adopting some or all of MWBP?). From
> WCAG to MWBP.
> 
> 2. Is about the work involved in adopting WCAG starting from MWBP
> (I've done MWBP, how much further do I have to go to comply with
> WCAG?) From WCAG to MWBP.
> 
> So while the *mapping* is from MWBP to WCAG, the *use of the document*
> goes both ways. These two things should not be in the same document, I
> think.
> 
> So at the cost of expanding from five pages to seven, and turning it
> inside out, I suggest splitting this up, so that we have:
> 
> 1. Extending/Upgrading from WCAG to MWBP.
>     * For each MWBP, the Accessibility Benefits of this BP (MWBP
> mapped to accessibility)
>     * For each WCAG SC, does this WCAG SC that I have done give also
> me MWBP compliance? (WCAG mapped to MWBP)
> 2. Extending/Upgrading from WCAG to MWBP.
>     * For each WCAG SC, the Mobile Benefits of this WCAG SC (WCAG
> mapped to MWBP)
>     * For each MWBP, does this BP that I have done also give me WCAG
> SC compliance? (MWBP mapped to WCAG)
> 
> I don't think that this will be as complicated as it seems, and will
> be easier to read.
> 
> What worries me is that we've been looking at this for so long and not
> noticed what the problem.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Alan
> 
> [1]
>
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED
-
> mwbp-wcag-20080305/mwbp-wcag20.html#MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES
> 
> 
> --
> Alan Chuter,
> Senior Web Accessibility Consultant, Technosite (www.technosite.es)
> Researcher, Inredis Project (www.inredis.es/)
> Email: achuter@technosite.es
> Alternative email: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com
> Blogs: www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 19:43:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 March 2008 19:43:29 GMT