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: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:04:35 +0200
Message-ID: <49EF4013.3050504@w3.org>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
CC: achuter@technosite.es, wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>, Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
Hi,

Shawn Henry wrote:
> 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?

I wasn't sure. The length doesn't disturb me, and I think it is a good 
intro for that section of the document. However, I can live with another 
approach, I'd like to leave that to EO and/or the editors to decide.

Best,
   Shadi

-- 
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 16:05:11 GMT

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