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: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:02:33 +0200
Message-ID: <49F02EA9.80606@w3.org>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
CC: achuter@technosite.es, shadi@w3.org, wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>, Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
Shawn Henry wrote:
[...]
> SLH: I thought we wanted to show a difference from WCAG being strongly 
> recommended for all sites and often required by law?

I agree with the second part since there is indeed no requirements by 
governments to comply with MWBP so far. That said, why would MWBP not be 
strongly recommended for all sites?


> 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.
> "

See above, the first sentence should read "W3C recommends that all Web 
sites comply with WCAG 2.0 and MWBP". I do not see any difference 
between WCAG and MWBP on that front.

[...]

Francois.
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 09:03:19 GMT

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