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, 12 Mar 2009 21:11:06 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B401C5D541@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I'm sorry that it has taken me till now to add a formal response to this. I've had my annotations on paper, but I suppose it's hard for the WG to see them there.

Like other commenters, I have quite a number of comments, so I suggest that the answer to the poll is that the document is not ready for publication.

I think there are quite a few textual improvements that could be made. And some that need to be. So in general I suggest that a specific editorial session on it would be valuable. I see that was suggested on Tuesday's call.

If such a call is to be had I will do my best to attend and so won't make all my comments here.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> Sent: 05 March 2009 20:59
> To: achuter@technosite.es; 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).
> 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, 12 March 2009 21:11:43 UTC

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