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: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:34:09 +0000
Message-Id: <3E3D1A15-3271-447B-95AF-68AB13B499E8@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>


I agree. it's important to do the right thing even if it is not  
needed for the compliance. The focus should be improving user  
experiences for both groups rather than just focusing on compliance.

Regards,
Yeliz.
On 20 Feb 2008, at 14:57, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:50:48 +0100, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>
>> Secondly there is value in stating that compliance with the Best
>> Practices produces accessibility benefits that do not assist with
>> complicance [because they have been dropped as untestable in WCAG  
>> 2.0,
>> or for any other reason]
>
> I agree. WCAG 2.0 compliance, while useful, is not the only or  
> definitive measure of accessibility, any more than compliance to  
> mobile BP is the definitive measure of mobile friendliness. They  
> are just references to a framework document we have available that  
> makes it easier to disucss the goals in concrete terms. We should  
> recognise that, and point out how you can improve user experiences  
> in both areas at the same time.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> -- 
> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>     je parle franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg lŠrer norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 15:34:15 GMT

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