W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > March 2008

minor tweak [was Re: Rethinking organization of the mobile-accessibility documents [was: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document]

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:04 -0500
Message-ID: <47EC1164.1020904@w3.org>
To: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com
Cc: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>

Thanks, Alan!

Related to this first bit:
"From MWBP towards WCAG: If you have implemented MWBP 1.0 and are considering progressing to:
- WCAG 2.0, then read From Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
- WCAG 1.0, then read From Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
"

How about making the next bit similar in format, e.g.:
"From WCAG towards MWBP: If you have implemented WCAG and are considering doing MWBP 1.0: 
- If you have done WCAG 2.0, then read From Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 to Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
- If you have done WCAG 1.0 then read From Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 to Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
"

Also, I wonder if this wording like this is easier to process:
>From mobile towards accessibility: For those who have implemented MWBP 1.0 and want to learn about
- WCAG 2.0, see From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
- WCAG 1.0, see From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 1.0
>From accessibility towards mobile: If you have implemented WCAG and want to learn about MWBP 1.0: 
- If you have done WCAG 2.0, see From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0
- If you have done WCAG 1.0, see From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0



Alan Chuter wrote:
> I have done a mock-up of the reorganised document [1]. There's no need
> to read the overview document, the important ones are the MWBP to WCAG
> [2] and WCAG to MWBP [3] pages.
> 
> It is more user-oriented. This means that both BPs and SCs or CPs
> appear in each document, but I think it's better that way. I've
> included comments to emphasize the thinking behind each one.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/Overview.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/mwbp-wcag20.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/wcag20-mwbp.html
> 
> 
>> -----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.
>>
>>  Alan, #1 and #2 are the same. Did you mean one to be different from the other?
>>
>>     * 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

-- 
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, 27 March 2008 21:28:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:15 GMT