W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2009

RE: [questionnaire] Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices ready for publication?

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:59:25 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B401BC8357@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <achuter@technosite.es>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
> By the way, people should read Kai's replies to my comments by the way
> (especially Jo and Dom where mentioned specifically).
Noted.

> > +1.1 Purpose
> >
> > * "Mobile Web Best Practices contains sections against each best
> > practice" might be better written as "Each of the Mobile Web Best
> > Practices contains a section called "What to Test".
> >
> > * The preceding isn't really about the purpose of the document, but I
> > can't see where else it fits in.
> >
> > -- I think this came from Jo, so I would like to see what he thinks.
> >    Also, we don't want to say "test".
> >    Jo?

Not one of my better crafted sentences, I guess.

Current Text: 

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to help content providers conform to Mobile Web Best Practices, by providing additional evaluations for their content and by interpreting and clarifying Best Practices in some cases.

Mobile Web Best Practices contains sections against each best practice called "What to Test". The evaluationsin this document supplement those tests.

Proposed Revision:

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to help content providers conform to Mobile Web Best Practices, by interpreting and clarifying some of the Best Practice statements and by providing additional evaluations which supplement the "What to test" sections of Best Practice statements.

Jo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Chuter
> Sent: 05 March 2009 09:13
> To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: [questionnaire] Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices
> ready for publication?
> 
> By the way, people should read Kai's replies to my comments by the way
> (especially Jo and Dom where mentioned specifically).
> 
> 
> 
> Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich escribió:
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Thank for you input.  That great stuff.
> > I will put my responses in the text and hope to see some other
> feedback
> > on Alan's points....
> >
> > -- Kai
> >
> >
> > +Generally
> >
> > * Mark up the table of contents as a real UL list (without the BR
> line
> > breaks).
> >
> > -- sure.  Thought this was already the case, but haven't looked in a
> > while.
> >
> >
> > * The section for each BP "Relevant device properties" needs some
> > explanation. I understand that this means properties that can be
> > detected on the server. This is covered in the BP document under "3.5
> > Establishing Context" [4].
> >
> > -- Dom had suggested putting this in and I think his intention was
> > different.
> >    Dom?
> >
> >
> > * I think that references should be marked in the text
> > [REFERENCE_HANDLE] with a link to the  section at the end of the
> page.
> >
> > -- Yes. Also, as Francois pointed out the Ref section needs to be
> > formatted as well.
> >
> >
> > +1.1 Purpose
> >
> > * "Mobile Web Best Practices contains sections against each best
> > practice" might be better written as "Each of the Mobile Web Best
> > Practices contains a section called "What to Test".
> >
> > * The preceding isn't really about the purpose of the document, but I
> > can't see where else it fits in.
> >
> > -- I think this came from Jo, so I would like to see what he thinks.
> >    Also, we don't want to say "test".
> >    Jo?
> >
> >
> > * Missing space in "evaluationsin".
> >
> > -- Ok
> >
> >
> > +1.2 Relationship to mobileOK Basic Tests
> >
> > * The second paragraph ("Many of the tests described in mobileOK
> Basic
> > Tests are...") is useful, and is an addendum to MWBP, but I don't
> think
> > it belongs in this section as many of the tests described in this
> > document are not useful when determining suitability of content for
> use
> > on more advanced devices either. It's more a general comment on MWBP
> as
> > a whole.
> >
> > -- Group feedback?
> >
> > * "completes the set of Best Practices" perhaps better as "completes
> the
> > set of tests for the Best Practices"
> >
> > -- Here too, shouldn't use "test".
> >    Group feedback to Alan's point?
> >
> >
> > +2.1 Evaluation Scope
> >
> > It might be useful to cite the Web content Accessibility Guidelines
> (now
> > a W3C Recommendation), the section about conformance that has two
> > clauses "Full pages" and "Complete processes." These are not specific
> to
> > accessibility and apply equally well to MWBP. So we should mention
> them
> > I think. In fact, just below it the item "A concise description of
> the
> > Web pages" is also relevant.
> >
> > -- Since we are not asking for conformance, this might be a bit too
> > strong.
> >    Group feedback?
> >
> >
> > +3.4 Background Image readability
> >
> > The Example should perhaps be an image (remembering
> > STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT). Without CSS it is black on white.
> >
> > The WCAG 2.0 Techniques [2] give a list of tools to check this,
> > including one developed especially for WCAG 2.0.  I think that the
> > Ishihara Test for Color Blindness isn't very useful as it consists of
> > very specific examples. If people aren't using exactly those colours
> it
> > won't help them.
> >
> > WCAG success criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) [3] gives a
> definition,
> > and exceptions to this which might be worth mentioning.
> >
> > -- I disagree on using a picture as this is a test for contrast.
> White
> > on black is a good way to demonstrate this.
> >    I am not aware of the Ishihara Test for Color Blindness being
> limited
> > to colors, but rather to contrast levels of two adjascent colors.
> >    Either way it demonstrate very well what this point is about.
> >    However we could certainly refer to more tools to check this
> issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > +3.5 Balance
> >
> > Under "Relevant device properties: Support for non-linear navigation
> > across links" I didn't understand this until I read the rest of the
> > section. Perhaps "non-sequential" or "skipping/jumping links" might
> be
> > clearer.
> >
> > -- Ok, I'll look at it, to make it clearer.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs

> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G18

> > [3]
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#visual-audio-contrast-

> con
> > trast
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#d0e437

> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Alan Chuter
> Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
> Consultor
> Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
> Fundación ONCE
> Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
> Fax: 91 375 70 51
> achuter@technosite.es
> http://www.technosite.es

> 

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 21:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC