W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Completion of mobile accessibility document for review

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:08:11 +0200
Message-ID: <49EEEC8B.8080003@w3.org>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
CC: achuter@technosite.es, Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>, wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Thank you Shawn for getting this started. Unfortunately I will not be 
able to attend EOWG this week but am happy with what the group decides. 
This is certainly going in the direction that I was thinking of.

Please find some additional thoughts:

Shawn Henry wrote:
> Here is a proposal to clear the remaining pending action items on the 
> WCAG-MWBP document:
> Add the following paragraph under "The Relationship Between WCAG and 
> MWBP" 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest/#no_correspondence_table> 
> WCAG and MWBP both aim to improve the Web interaction of users who 
> experience barriers due to either disabilities or the device used to 
> access the Web. However, WCAG and MWBP have slightly different 
> approaches. For example, a key feature of WCAG is testability and the 
> WCAG 2.0 success criteria are specifically designed to be testable 
> statements. W3C recommends that all Web sites comply with WCAG 2.0. In 
> some situations, Web sites are legally required to be accessible. MWBP 
> is different in that it provides suggested best practices for 
> consideration. Although some of the best practices are testable, they 
> are not all intended to be testable. It is not expected that all Web 
> sites will meet MWBP.
> ---
> Thoughts?

First, I'd replace "they are not all intended to be testable" with "they 
are not all designed to be testable" (I don't think it was the explicit 
intention of the group to not make all the requirements testable).

More importantly, even if all MWBP were to become testable requirements, 
there would probably still be some mapping differences between the two 
documents. I think that one of the things to mention is something like:

"While the two documents show significant overlap in many areas, there 
is a continuum in the level of overlap between the individual technical 
requirements, so that there isn't always a 1:1 mapping between them. For 
instance, WCAG has some requirements that are specific to accessibility 
needs of people with disabilities, and that are not relevant for mobile 
devices [1]. Conversely, MWBP has other requirements that are specific 
to mobile devices only [2]. However, in general most requirements are 
applicable for both groups of users [3].".

[1] Example: requirements that specifically address assistive technology
[2] Example: requirements to minimize battery consumption and CPU power
[3] Example: requirements for color contrast, flexible font sizes, etc.

In other words, I think we shouldn't stress the testability aspect so 
much as the differentiator but rather highlight the goals more clearly.

Finally, I like the point "WCAG is intended for all Web sites while MWBP 
is not intended for all Web sites" very much but couldn't find a way to 
build into the same paragraph. This points also highlights a fundamental 
difference between the goals and design principles of the two documents.


> *If at all possible, I'd like to discuss this with EOWG this week* since 
> Alan won't be available next week.
> Thanks,
> ~Shawn
> Shawn Henry wrote:
>> Thanks for checking in, Alan.
>> I assume the WG would want to review whatever we end up adding to 
>> cover this issue; however, it will probably be one small paragraph and 
>> it is likely there will be few or no comments from BPWG participants.
>> Note that I think Yeliz's paragraph is very good input, but needs 
>> refining to flow within the context of the document. I look forward to 
>> Shadi's perspectives... :-)
>> Thanks,
>> ~Shawn
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>> Yes, I would agree. My sincere apologies for not getting to this 
>>> action item in time. I doubt it would need action by MWBP group.
>>> Thanks,
>>>   Shadi
>>> Alan Chuter wrote:
>>>> Hi Shawn, Shadi,
>>>> This Wednesday to Friday the Mobile Web Best Practices WG will be 
>>>> holding a face to face. One of the agenda items is "Finalise 
>>>> mobile/accessibility" [1]. This is just a reminder about the (to my 
>>>> understanding) only two items pending:
>>>> 1. "Explain difference in approach between MWBPs and WCAG, 
>>>> testability, best practices v. success criteria." Yeliz circulated a 
>>>> suggestion to us for it on 3 March:
>>>> "In principle, both WCAG and MWBP aim to improve the Web interaction 
>>>> of users who experience barriers due to either disabilities or the 
>>>> device used to access the Web. However, WCAG and MWBP have slightly 
>>>> different approaches. For instance, even though WCAG in some 
>>>> countries is a legal requirement, MWBP is not. Although some best 
>>>> practices are testable in MWBP, testability is a key feature of the 
>>>> WCAG 2.0 principles. However, despite these differences, they both 
>>>> focus on user experience."
>>>> 2. "Shadi to summarize different persepctives of WCAG and MWBP" [2].
>>>> My intention is to say to the MWBP WG that there is nothing further 
>>>> for them to do for now.
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Alan
>>>> [1] 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/15-eo-minutes.html#action05

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 10:08:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:25:20 UTC