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

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

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:37:47 -0500
Message-ID: <486CC81B.1010106@w3.org>
To: MWI MWBP Member List <member-bpwg@w3.org>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>

MWBP and EOWG,

Some further comments are inline below.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Comments on EOWG: Mobile-Accessibility Overlap document  publication
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:12:42 -0500
From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
To: achuter@technosite.es
CC: EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>,  MWI MWBP Member List <member-bpwg@w3.org>
References: <486A43C3.10206@w3.org> <486AD6A0.8080602@w3.org> <486B3D11.5010901@technosite.es>

Alan,

Thanks for the quick implementation. I am fine with leaving these two issues as is for this publication and addressing them later...

~Shawn

Alan Chuter wrote:
> 
> 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.

I think the action item in the minutes was not logged accurately, and should have been "put placeholder text for the WCAG 2.0 & MWBP 1.0 together document..." Here is some more from the minutes:
- Wayne: I don't think we should hold off. Get the other ones [From-To pages] out right away.
- Yeliz: pub [publish] what we have now. Do the combined later.

As Alan has said, the "Together" section will be very difficult. Indeed, we have not yet even figured out a format that would work.

EOWG wants to get the first version of this completed soon by completing the easier parts first, publishing that, and then tackling the harder parts for an second version. So the questions are:
- Does Alan and MWBP agree to get the first version completed soon without the "Together" section, or delay publication of the first version until the "Together" section is complete?
- If we do a first version without the "Together" section, should we just mention it in the Overview page, or should we have a separate page, which adds complexity to the navigation and sub-page explanation and may be a bit annoying to users (to be sent to a page without substantial content).

I do think EOWG is quite open to considering these or other options...

>  > 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.

There are several reasons for the non-technical business case information to be in the Introduction document, and for the technical document to include only the technical information. One reason is that once the Technical document is completed and published on /TR/, it is more complex to make little updates, whereas we can easily make updates to the Introduction document.

Note that in all promotional material[1] we will be pointing to the Introduction document first (not just the technical document). Also, Alan has done a good job of clearly pointing to the Introduction document in the overview page of the technical document.

[1] for example, http://www.w3.org/WAI/highlights/archive#x20080122a and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2008JanMar/0014.html

> 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.
>>
>> ###
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
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
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 12:39:52 GMT

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