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

RE: A few more evaluation procedures for addendum to BP (ACTION-872)

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:58:48 +0100
Message-ID: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602ED046B8B@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Bruce Lawson" <brucel@opera.com>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: "public-bpwg" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

:-)  I see  
We are going to fix the major shortcoming of the BP document in the
addendum :-)

I agree though.

The question is, where?

We could add this to every test, driving the message home....which I
think at this point is necessary or we place into an early opening
paragraph where it may easily be overread.

-- Kai 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Lawson
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:31 AM
> To: Jo Rabin; Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Cc: public-bpwg
> Subject: Re: A few more evaluation procedures for addendum to 
> BP (ACTION-872)
> 
> 
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:17:15 -0000, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, and I am wondering if we need an additional optional section:
> >
> > Variation on mobileOK Basic Tests
> >
> > e.g. to explain that the 20k limit is for the DDC and that 
> it is often 
> > good practice to go beyond this for more advanced devices
> 
> I think this is vital. When I first read the document, I was 
> aghast at that 20K limit until I ferreted out the context, 
> but that took a degree of exegesis. Suggest we make that 
> abundantly clear. (I wrote about it on the web standards project site
> http://www.webstandards.org/2008/11/04/wcag-2-and-mobileok-bas
ic-tests-specs-are-proposed-recommendations/)
> 
> bruce
> Opera
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 10:59:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC