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

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

From: Manrique Lopez <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:16:30 +0100
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1236932190.6524.10.camel@bespin>
Hello,

I'll try to be on the call then ;-)

El jue, 12-03-2009 a las 21:11 +0000, Jo Rabin escribió:
> 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
> > >
> 
-- 
José Manrique López de la Fuente <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>
Área de Tecnología Fundación CTIC
Web: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Tel: (+34) 984 29 12 12
Parque Científico Tecnológico de Gijón
Edificio Centros Tecnológicos
Cabueñes s/n
33203 GIJÓN - ASTURIAS - ESPAÑA
#Antes de imprimir este e-mail piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El
medioambiente es cosa de todos.
Received on Friday, 13 March 2009 08:17:19 UTC

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