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

RE: Usefulness of compliance section in Web Accessible Mobile document

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:33:02 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4B88534@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Cc: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

>From our reading of the document over the last couple of BP meetings it
seems that there is a very substantial number that are noted as
improving accessibility, though they don't improve your prospects of
compliance. The overall conclusion I draw is that following Mobile Web
Best Practice in general improves accessibility and to some more limited
extent improves your chances of conformance. So like Phil, I agree that
this should be spelled out.

Jo



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: 19 February 2008 11:45
> To: MWI BPWG Public
> Cc: EOWG
> Subject: Re: Usefulness of compliance section in Web Accessible Mobile
> document
> 
> 
> That's a can of worms Alan, but I think the answer can only be yes, it
> is worth it.
> 
> BP lists 60 things you should do, mobileOK Basic tests less than half
of
> those, mobileOK Pro will test almost, but probably not quite, all.
Even
> so, things like our Testing and Thematic Consistency are at the heart
of
> what it's about. I wonder whether one might be able to make the case
> that compliance is the letter of the law cf. following all BPs which
is
> to work within the spirit of the law?
> 
> Phil.
> 
> Alan Chuter wrote:
> > Dear EOWG and MWBP WG participants,
> >
> > On last Friday's EOWG call in the discussion [1] of the "From Mobile
> > Web Best Practices 1.0 to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0"
> > document, under ACCESS_KEY [2] it was mentioned that while using
> > access keys is not required by WCAG 2.0, using them may be
considered
> > best practice and so it should be mentioned. My argument is that
what
> > people are really interested in is whether they achieve compliance
or
> > not. Should there be another section on doing the right thing even
> > when it isn't needed for compliance?
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/15-eo-minutes.html#action04
> > [2]
>
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED
-
> mwbp-wcag-20080129/mwbp-wcag20.html#ACCESS_KEYS
> >
> 
> --
> Phil Archer
> Chief Technical Officer,
> Family Online Safety Institute
> w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 12:33:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:47 GMT