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

RE: New version of mobile accessibility document

From: <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:08:50 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4265.75.134.19.95.1220627330.squirrel@webmail.w3.org>
To: "Alan Chuter" <achuter@technosite.es>
Cc: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>

Hi, Alan,

Would you confirm that you received this e-mail?

Thanks,
~Shawn


> Hi, Alan,
>
> Some comments on the draft, all at your discretion.
>
> I do find the bulleted list easier to parse mentally.
>
> Location: Scope, Sentence one
> Current wording: WCAG and MWBP, and does not replace either of those
> Suggested revision: WCAG and MWBP, and it does not replace either of those
> Rationale: clause following the comma needs a subject
> ("it") to be an independent clause. Reads more clearly than just removing
> the comma.
>
> Location: Scope, Sentence 3
> Current wording: information about best Practices for delivering
> Suggested revision: information about best practices for delivering
> Lowercase both b and p; not a proper noun
>
> Location: Managing, Sentence 2
> Current wording: Although W3C provides best practices and guidelines to
> address such barriers, depending on the user group these barriers are
> addressed in different documents
> Suggested revision: Although W3C provides best practices and guidelines to
> address such barriers, depending on the user group, these barriers are
> addressed in different documents
> Rationale: Comma to delineate non-restrictive clause
>
> Location: Managing, Sentence 3
> Current wording: However, considering overlapping requirements has some
> benefits which include
> Suggested revision: However, considering that overlapping requirements
> have some benefits which include
> Rationale: Subject verb agreement
>
> Location: Managing, Bullet 2
> Current wording: Content providers may decide not to adopt another
> recommendation due to imagined cost. This document explains the overlaps
> and synergies between the two recommendations, and the ways in which once
> one recommendation is adopted, the other is less onerous.
> Suggested revision: Content providers may decide not to adopt another
> recommendation due to imagined cost. This document explains the overlaps
> and synergies between the two recommendations and the ways in which, once
> one recommendation is adopted, adoption of the other is less onerous.
>
> Location: Managing, Bullet 3
> Current wording: Specialists in the Web accessibility or mobile Web fields
> may be unaware of the importance of the other
> and have difficulty communicating.
> Suggestion/Rationale:
> Not sure what "the other" means here. Does
> it mean "the other group" or the other document". I think you
> mean the other group. If so, then suggested revision is:
> Specialists in the Web accessibility or mobile Web fields may
> be unaware of the importance of the other recommendation and have
> difficulty communicating with each other.
> Rationale: Unclear referecne
>
> Location: Why No Mapping Table, sentence 1
> 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.
> Suggested revision: While there appear to be many similarities between the
> WCAG provisions and those of the MWBP, many subtle differences remain.
> Rationale: Verb agreement, clarity
>
> Location:
> Current wording: For example, while both WCAG and MWBP require good colour
> contrast, WCAG emphasises users' color perception while MWBP focuses on
> the device characteristics (reduced color palette, poor lighting).
> Suggested revision: For example, while both WCAG and MWBP require good
> colour contrast, WCAG emphasises users' color perception, while MWBP
> focuses on the device characteristics (reduced color palette, poor
> lighting).
> Rationale: Need comma to offset clause
>
> Location:
> Current wording: This means that complying with WCAG may meet the related
> MWBP, but not the inverse.
> Suggested revision: This means that while complying with WCAG may meet the
> related MWBP, the inverse is not true.
> Rationale: Clarity of meaning
>
> Regards,
>
> Lisa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Chuter
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:55 AM
> To: EOWG; MWI BPWG Public
> Subject: New version of mobile accessibility document
>
>
> Dear EOWG WG and MWBP WG participants,
>
> There is a another new editor's draft of this document [1] for your
> continuing review, dated 1 September 2008. I have updated the changelog
> with the most important changes [2].
>
> The main changes are a check of consistency between the pages, and
> checking the WCAG 2.0 success criteria from the CR.
>
> best regards,
>
> Alan
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080901/
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/changelog.html
>
> --
> Alan Chuter
> Senior Web Accessibility Consultant, Technosite
> Researcher, Inredis Project (www.inredis.es)
> achuter@technosite.es
> http://www.technosite.es
>
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 15:09:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:16 GMT