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

Re: Completion of mobile accessibility document for review (paragraph on differences of approach)

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:31:55 -0500
Message-ID: <49EF386B.9090108@w3.org>
To: achuter@technosite.es, shadi@w3.org
CC: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>, Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
See two comments below, preceded with "SLH:"

Alan Chuter wrote:
...

> I have incorporated Shadi's comments into the existing paragraph on 
> differences of approach between MWBP and WCAG, which now looks like the 
> following:

> [start proposed text] 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.

Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
I think it is better not to include the last sentence "It is not expected that all Web sites will meet MWBP". I think it is not so much related to the comparison. 

SLH: I thought we wanted to show a difference from WCAG being strongly recommended for all sites and often required by law? What if we shift it around:
"
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. 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.

W3C recommends that all Web sites comply with WCAG 2.0. In some situations, Web sites are legally required to be accessible to people with disabilities. There are not such requirements for MWBP.
"


> 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 is not 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 (for example, requirements that specifically 
> address assistive technology). Conversely, MWBP has other requirements 
> that are specific to mobile devices only (for example, requirements to 
> minimize battery consumption and CPU power). However, in general most 
> requirements are applicable for both groups of users (for example, 
> requirements for color contrast, flexible font sizes, etc.).
> [end proposed text]

SLH: I wonder if this has gotten too long and detailed? Perhaps we want to keep it shorter here and put more in the intro document <http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/> ? Shadi, did you intend for the examples to be included in the text?

~Shawn
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 15:32:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:18 GMT