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

Re: Comments on EOWG: Mobile-Accessibility Overlap document publication

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:32:17 +0200
Message-ID: <486B3D11.5010901@technosite.es>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
CC: shawn@w3.org, MWI MWBP Member List <member-bpwg@w3.org>

Thanks for all these suggestions. I've implemented most of them in a new 
version [1]. I think that the following two merit some input from BPWG.

Shawn Henry wrote:

> location: throughout
> current wording: WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 Together page
> suggested revision: I understood that EOWG decided at the 20 June 
> teleconference to take this page out for now. In order to keep the scope 
> down and get the first version of the document completed sooner, EOWG 
> suggested doing the Together page in a second revision. They suggested 
> putting a placeholder paragraph in the overview document that says we 
> might provide detailed information later, and for now if you are looking 
> at both WCAG 2.0 & MWBP fresh, it’s probably best to start with WCAG 2.0 
> first and then use the "from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0" page, and also to 
> point to the experiences document 
> [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences] that shows some of the 
> overlaps. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action12]
> rationale: simplifies the nav and lists/table of subpages, and avoids 
> sending them to a page that is essentially empty of content.

Removing the page isn't the same as putting in "placeholder" text. I 
don't think we can publish the draft with what is perhaps the most 
important page missing. The action recorded was "put a placeholder 
document for the WCAG 2.0 & MWBP 1.0 together document that suggests 
looking at WCAG 2.0 first and then the "from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0" 
document, and point to experiences document 
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences] that show some of the 
overlaps". I've included a "provide detailed information later" 
paragraph as you suggest and the pointer to the experiences page. I 
think that really, as the page in its present shape is what you are 
suggesting, but it's in a seperate page, not in the overview. In short, 
I've left the page there but included the information suggested.

 > location: overview page, “Managing Overlapping Requirements” section
 > current wording: whole section
 > suggested revision: move this to http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
 > rationale: agreed to by EOWG: “ACTION: Alan: move the business case type
 > information to the other document (EO introduction) and here leave only
 > the technical information” -
 > http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action15
Do you mean remove this section altogether? Perhaps this change can be 
held over until after comment from BPWG.

best regards,

Alan

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080702/















> 
> -----
> *I suggest the following for this publication, but they are not required:*
> 
> location: overview page, “How to Use This Document” section
> current wording: “This technical report consists of a number of pages 
> describing the relationship between WCAG and MWBP. If you are interested 
> in complying with both WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 together, then refer to 
> WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 Together. If you have already complied with one of 
> these recommendations, then depending on which one, continue with the 
> following documents (@@note list and table provided in parallel until 
> WGs decide which is easiest to understand):”
> suggested revision: “This technical report includes 4 subpages that 
> describe the relationship between each version of WCAG and MWBP 1.0. 
> Each page covers a different scenario based on which document you are 
> starting from, as listed [in the table] below.
> <br><span class=”@@”>REVIEW NOTE: Do you find the bulleted list or the 
> table easier to understand?</span>”
> rationale: simpler explanation of the document, clearer indication of 
> the open issue
> 
> location: overview page, “Managing Overlapping Requirements” section
> current wording: whole section
> suggested revision: move this to http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
> rationale: agreed to by EOWG: “ACTION: Alan: move the business case type 
> information to the other document (EO introduction) and here leave only 
> the technical information” - 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action15
> 
> location: overview page, Differences Between WCAG and MWBP section
> current wording: “Differences Between WCAG and MWBP
> Unlike the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the Mobile Web Best 
> Practices are not prioritised or assigned levels. MWBP relates to 
> checkpoints of all the WCAG 1.0 priorities (1, 2 and 3) and to all the 
> WCAG 2.0 level A, AA and AAA success criteria.”
> suggested revision: “Priorities and Levels
> The WCAG 1.0 checkpoints (CP) are assigned Priority 1, 2, 3. WCAG 2.0 
> success criteria (SC) are assigned Level A, AA, AAA. The Mobile Web Best 
> Practices (BP) are not assigned levels.”
> (and change WCAG 1.0 link from 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#priorities to 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#priorities)
> rationale: clearer
> 
> location: overview, appendix A: References
> current wording: [WCAG2.0]
> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. 
> Guarino Reid and G. Vanderheiden, May 2007 (see 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/)
> suggested revision: update to current version consider not putting a 
> date and using the link http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20 so that it always 
> goes to the current version
> location: subpages
> current wording: “Note on inconsistent links: Links in the “something” 
> and “nothing” sections point to within this page. Links in the 
> “everything” section point to the Recommendation.”
> suggested revision: add <span class=”@@”>REVIEW NOTE: Is this too 
> confusing? Suggestions for better ways to do it?</span>”
> 
> location: all subpages
> current wording:
> “Nothing: content already complies with these BPs:”
> “Something: more effort of some kind or a check, to comply with these BPs:”
> “Everything: start from scratch to comply with these BPs:”
> suggested revision:
> “Nothing: content that already meets WCAG 1.0 should already meet these 
> BPs:”
> “Something: more effort of some kind or a check is need, to comply with 
> these BPs:”
> “Everything: these BPs are not related to WCAG 1.0 checkpoints:”
> rationale: clearer
> 
> -------
> *Please consider these for the next version (or the easy and 
> non-controversial ones for this version):*
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: Overview, Scope section
> current wording: “This technical report is created as a supporting 
> document to WCAG and MWBP, and does not replace either of those. For 
> further and comprehensive information about how to make Web content 
> accessible to people with disabilities, please refer to the Web Content 
> Accessibility Guidelines. Similarly, for further and comprehensive 
> information about best Practices for delivering Web content to mobile 
> devices, please refer to the Mobile Web Best Practices.”
> suggested revision: “This technical report is a companion document to 
> WCAG and MWBP, and does not replace either of those. The actual Web 
> Content Accessibility Guidelines document should be used to make Web 
> content accessible to people with disabilities, and the Mobile Web Best 
> Practices document should be used for best practices for making Web 
> content for mobile devices.”
> rationale: more direct
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: overview page, “How to Use This Document” section
> current wording: table formatting, column headers are centered
> suggested revision: left align column headers
> rationale: easier to read since data is left aligned
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: overview, “Why No Mapping Table?” section
> current wording: “While there appears to be many similarities between 
> many of the WCAG provisions and those of the MWBPs, there are still many 
> subtle differences. … but not the inverse.”
> suggested revision: “While there are many similarities between the WCAG 
> provisions and the MWBP provisions, there are still many subtle 
> differences. … but not the inverse. Thus, there is not a simple mapping 
> table between WCAG and MWBP. The <a href>Experiences Shared by People 
> with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices</a> document shows 
> generally how WCAG and MWBP relate. ”
> rationale: simpler. points to closet thing we have (experiences doc)
> 
> priority: required for next version
> location: overview doc, Appendix B: Glossary
> suggested revision: move this back to the main part of the document 
> (instead of an appendix) and edit to be more relevant across all 
> subpages, and to have consistent wording., e.g: consider putting 
> “Concerning the effort required to meet a checkpoint or best practice,” 
> at the top rather than starting some of the definitions with is; where 
> you have “checkpoint or best practice” add SC: “ checkpoint, success 
> criteria, or best practice”…
> priority: low, editor's discretion
> location: overview page, “How to Use This Document” section
> current wording: “considering progressing to”
> suggested revision: “want to learn about”
> rationale: more broad
> 
> priority: low, editor's discretion
> location: overview page, abstract
> current wording: “This technical report describes the relationships, 
> overlaps and differences between... Introductory information can be 
> found in Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web…”
> suggested revision: “This technical report describes the overlaps and 
> differences between… An introduced and links to related documents are in 
> Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web…”
> rationale: more simple, direct wording
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: subpages
> suggested revision: make the intro text the same
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: subpages
> current wording: “If your content already meets Web Content 
> Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, this page describes what needs to be done 
> to meet all the Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP).”
> suggested revision: “For those familiar with <a href>Web Content 
> Accessibility Guidelines 1.0</a>, this page describes what also needs to 
> be done to meet <a href>Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0</a>.”
> rationale: the audience is broader than those whose content already 
> meets WCAG
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: subpages
> current wording: “simplicity with keywords (nothing, something, 
> everything)”
> suggested revision: link to the “definitions” in the overview page
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: subpages
> suggested revision: re-consider the order that the information is 
> presented, e.g., alphabetical or as it is in the MWBP, etc. If not 
> alphabetical or numerical, note in the document how it is ordered.
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: subpages
> current wording: “This section deals with each of the best practices 
> which WCAG 1.0 helps with meeting.”
> suggested revision: “This section lists each of the Mobile Web best 
> practices that related to WCAG 1.0, which are listed under “Nothing” and 
> “”Something” above.
> 
> priority: requested for next version
> location: subpages
> current wording: “As described in this section, many Mobile Web BPs have 
> the added benefit of partial or complete compliance with certain WCAG 
> success criteria. However, the accessibility guidelines are often more 
> detailed or describe a different aspect of the same concept. It should 
> not be assumed that following any BP will ensure accessibility. To 
> ensure accessibility it is important to always consult the Web Content 
> Accessibility Guidelines.”
> suggested revision: consider having this idea only in the overview 
> document and not repeating it on  every subpage.
> 
> ###
> 
> 


-- 
Alan Chuter
achuter@technosite.es
Technosite
http://www.technosite.es
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 08:33:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:51 GMT