W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Rethinking organization of the mobile-accessibility documents

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:28:41 +0200
Message-ID: <79cab0900804101128m41982391xfaefa156a433301e@mail.gmail.com>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

I should clarify that where I have put questions in my comments like
"AC: For each MWBP, how has WCAG 2.0 helped me comply with it?" these
are quotes from the document, intended to illustrate the intention,
not questions aimed at the reader.

A.

On 10/04/2008, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote:
> I think that these cases are all covered by the "WCAG 2.0 to MWBP,
>  together" version [1]. I've prefixed my comments below with "AC:"
>
>  * I want to know:
>  1. which MWBP I've already got covered by meeting WCAG
>  AC: For each MWBP, how has WCAG 2.0 helped me comply with it?
>
>  2. Which MWBP I've partially got covered but need to do a little more
>  on, or that I might already have covered but need to check
>  AC: For each MWBP, how has WCAG 2.0 helped me comply with it? It
>  depends on what level you've done. Need to explain in each case.
>
>  3. Which MWBP are not at all addressed by WCAG
>  AC: For each MWBP, tell me if WCAG hasn't helped me comply with it.
>  Again, it depends on what level you've done.
>
>  * I'd really like to get a quick overview of how much is in the three
>  categories (1, 2, 3 above), probably as lists [depending on
>  organization, this might be provided by the table of contents]
>  AC: This is already covered by the section "Extending from WCAG 2.0 to
>  MWBP 1.0" in the published draft [3]. It's structure is based on the
>  WCAG level done and the three levels described above (1, above =
>  Nothing; 2 above = Something; 3 above = Everything) like this (with a
>  list of BPs under each # level.
>
>  Level A Compliance Achieved
>  # Nothing
>  # Something
>  # Everything
>  Level AA Compliance Achieved
>  # Nothing
>  # Something
>  # Everything
>  Level AAA Compliance Achieved
>  # Nothing
>  # Something
>  # Everything
>
>  * Then I'd like to get a concise bit of info on the #2 items, telling
>  my just what else to check to see if I need to do more to meet MWBP. I
>  want this to be short, quick, and clear.
>  AC: Again, for each MWBP, how has WCAG 2.0 helped me comply with it?
>  It depends on what WCAG level you've done. Need to explain in each
>  case. I don't see how this can be any more concise, except by starting
>  each explanation with "Yes," "No," "Partially," or "Possibly". This is
>  already done.
>
>  * I _might_ want to look into more details on a couple of points, but
>  I don't want that to clutter the simple material (e.g., it's linked to
>  elsewhere).
>  AC: I think that this is covered by the previous case, as long as the
>  reader is aware of the importance and defined meaning of the Yes, No,
>  Partially and Possibly keywords.
>
>  I think all this is covered by [1]. However, the section "Individual
>  WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria Compared" [3] is of only passing interest
>  (For each WCAG SC, what BPs does it cover? sounds interesting but
>  isn't actually very useful structured by SC). Please, somebody look at
>  the section [3] and confirm (or refute) my view that it is not useful
>  and can be removed.
>
>  regards,
>
>  Alan
>
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v2_wcag20-mwbp-together.html#mwbp_compared
>  [2] Individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria Compared
>  [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mwbp-wcag-20080122/wcag20-mwbp.html#extending_WCAG20_MWBP10
>
>
>  On 10/04/2008, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>  >
>  >  At the EOWG teleconference on 28 March, we discussed the reorganization of
>  > the MWBP to WCAG documents. In order to help focus the discussion, we took
>  > on the role of a persona and scenario/use case:
>  >  * I am a Web developer (or project manager)
>  >  * I have a pretty good understanding of MWBP, and my web site meets most of
>  > the BPs
>  >  * We're doing some updating to our site, and want to make it more
>  > accessible, preferably to meet WCAG
>  >
>  >  EOWG came up with these needs:
>  >  * I want to know:
>  >  1. which WCAG success criteria (SC) I've already got covered by meeting
>  > MWBP
>  >  2. which WCAG SC I've partially got covered but need to do a little more
>  > on, or that I might already have covered but need to check
>  >  3. which WCAG SC are not at all addressed by MWBP
>  >  * I'd really like to get a quick overview of how much is in the three
>  > categories (1,2,3 above), probably as lists [depending on organization, this
>  > might be provided by the table of contents]
>  >  * Then I'd like to get a concise bit of info on the #2 items, telling my
>  > just what else to check to see if I need to do more to meet WCAG. I want
>  > this to be short, quick, and clear.
>  >  * I _might_ want to look into more details on a couple of points, but I
>  > don't want that to clutter the simple material (e.g., it's linked to
>  > elsewhere)
>  >
>  >  You can switch MWBP and WCAG in the above and the rest still applies.
>  >
>  >  (Please accept my apologies in taking so long to complete my action item to
>  > write up the notes above.)
>  >
>  >  Regards,
>  >  ~Shawn
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  Shawn Henry wrote:
>  >
>  > > Thanks for getting us started re-thinking the overall purpose, audience,
>  > and organization of these documents, Alan.
>  > >
>  > > I took a pass at updating the analysis document at
>  > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag
>  > > I think the 3 primary use cases for the documents are (where the "I" could
>  > be a developer, manager, policy maker, etc.):
>  > > 1. I know WCAG 1.0 and now I also want to do MWBP.
>  > > 2. I know MWBP, and now I also want to do WCAG 2.0.
>  > > 3. I haven't done much with either accessibility or designing for mobile
>  > devices, and now I want to do both.
>  > >
>  > > Question: How common is #2 - that is, are many people familiar with MWBP?
>  > >
>  > > Let's think about simplifying the documents for the primary use cases.
>  > Also, it would be good if we could provide for both these situations:
>  > > - people who just need a quick, simple list and explanation of what they
>  > need to do
>  > > - people who are interested in the knowing more about the issues
>  > >
>  > > For example, if I already meet WCAG and I just want the simplified list of
>  > what I need to do to also meet MWBP, I really don't want to wade through the
>  > benefits of one for the other, I just want the info on what of the MWBP I've
>  > already met and what I still need to do.
>  > >
>  > > I also posted online updated drafts of the "Experiences" document, which
>  > Yeliz has been working on. Note that the 2 documents below have the same
>  > information, yet one is formatted in a table and the other is not.
>  > > * Table-version:
>  > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/MWBP-WCAG/experiences-draft
>  > > * Non-table-version:
>  > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/MWBP-WCAG/experiences2-draft
>  > >
>  > > Let's also re-think what we want in this document. Perhaps some of the
>  > information that is currently in the technical document
>  > <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080314/>
>  > would be better located in the "Experiences" document?
>  > >
>  > > EOWG: Please send your thoughts to the EOWG list in the next day or two,
>  > and then let's try to finalize it on the EOWG teleconference this Friday so
>  > that Alan and Yeliz can re-organize the documents as needed.
>  > >
>  > > Thanks,
>  > > ~Shawn
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
>  > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > I agree with Jo; I am also not sure what the proposed changes are. I
>  > thought there are five documents:
>  > > >
>  > > > 1. Working on WCAG 2.0 and MWBP together;
>  > > > 2. Starting from MWBP and extending/upgrading to WCAG 2.0
>  > > > 3. Starting from MWBP and extending/upgrading to WCAG 1.0
>  > > > 4. Starting from WCAG 1.0 and extending/upgrading to MWBP
>  > > > 5. Starting from WCAG 2.0 and extending/upgrading to MWBP
>  > > >
>  > > > What would be the other two proposed documents?
>  > > >
>  > > > Regards,
>  > > > Yeliz.
>  > > >
>  > > > On 14 Mar 2008, at 19:42, Jo Rabin wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > 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.
>  > > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > Alan, #1 and #2 are the same. Did you mean one to be different from the
>  > other?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > >    * 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
>  > > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>  >  about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
>  >  phone: +1-617-395-7664
>  >  e-mail: shawn@w3.org
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  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
>


-- 
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 Thursday, 10 April 2008 18:35:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:49 GMT