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

Re: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:51:24 +0100
Message-ID: <79cab0900803170251g364c6ba0n7e601295e8453583@mail.gmail.com>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Sorry, I was wrong, there wouldn't be any more documents than there
are now, but the content would be moved around, redistributed.


A.



On 17/03/2008, Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk> 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.
>  >>     * 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
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>


-- 
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 Monday, 17 March 2008 09:52:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:48 GMT