Hi Shadi,

Thanks for your input. The use cases for the document are publicly  
available [1] (and perhaps should be included in it).

This section is titled "How Mobile Web Best Practices can Benefit Users  
with Disabilities" but perhaps it should have the subtitle "...and help  
authors comply with WCAG". I agree that it would be better for the future  
of the document to reference WCAG 2.0 [1], but at present it is still a  
Working Draft. I'm not sure I agree that WCAG 1.0 will be superseded by  
2.0, rather the two will coexist. I agree with you that 2.0 would be  
better, but we felt that 1.0 is what people need at the moment.

Regarding the THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY best practice [3], I wanted to show  
that using alternative pages (ie, not following the BP or the WCAG  
checkpoint) can lead to multiplying the alternatives and an absurd  
situation, and so they should only be used if all else fails. I think your  
right in saying we shouldn't cite CP 11.4. Do you think it corresponds to  
any other CPs?




En Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:57:14 +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra <>  

> Hi Alan,
> As I'm missing the background, I'm not really sure what you are trying  
> to do. Is your intention to explain how the Mobile Web Best Practices  
> relate to the requirements of people with disabilities on the Web? In  
> this case it may be better to avoid direct comparison to WCAG 1.0 as we  
> hope it will be superseded in due course. In the specific example below  
> you could further highlight the benefit of "One Web" and the impact of  
> creating separate pages for content authors but also for end-users  
> rather than citing CP 11.4 (which is too often used as an excuse).
> Anyway, I think this is very interesting and important work. I've CC'ed  
> the WAI Coordination Group to raise it to their attention. Hopefully a  
> WAI WG can allocate some time to review a first Working Draft of this  
> work rather than look at the individual bits piece by piece.
> Thank you for continuing to promote accessibility in the MWI!
> Regards,
>    Shadi
> Alan Chuter wrote:
>> I've created a working copy to allow quick updates [1], prior to  
>> incorporation in the editor's draft.
>>  As the most obvious part to start at is the beginning, I've begin by  
>> adding THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY [3]. My first attempt isn't very inspired  
>> as there does seem to be a relationship except with 11.4 [2] on  
>> alternative pages. How does THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY assist users with  
>> disabilities? Comments and more ideas please.
>>  [cite]
>> This BP encourages content providers to make content accessible to as  
>> wide a range of devices and users as possible. It contemplates the use  
>> of alternative pages only as a last resort. In this respect it relates  
>> to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 11.4, “If, after best efforts, you cannot create  
>> an accessible  page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses  
>> W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent  information (or  
>> functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original)  
>> page. [Priority 1].” In MWBP the alternative page or URI is to provide  
>> for device limitations while in WCAG it is to provide for user  
>> limitations.
>> Not complying with this best practice but complying with WCAG  
>> checkpoint 11.4 will be very difficult as each new device-specific  
>> version will require 2n versions of the content.
>> [end cite]
>>  [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]

Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant
Technosite (Fundación ONCE)
Tel. +34 91 121 03 35
Skype: achuter1

If you are unable to reply to this message because of spam filter, try my  
alternative address

Si no puede contestar a este mensaje por culpa del filtro de spam, intente  
con mi dirección alternativa

Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 12:07:37 UTC