Re: BP THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY and WCAG

This is one of those areas where WCAG is aware of the problem but UWA is likely
closer to having solutions.  Involves the 'adaptation' TF in BPWG IMHO.
Pardon the codes.

I will try to respond to the task force in more detail with related 
concepts such
as landmark support in the Role attribute and WAI-ARIA.

But graceful recovery is an underdeveloped topic at W3C as the rebels in the
HTML WG are quite keen to let us know.

Al

At 11:57 AM +0200 17 09 2007, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>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WCAG 1.0 as we hope it will be superseded in due course.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] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dftkhw2k_19gcvjvh
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-alt-pages
>>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY
>>
>
>--
>Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
>Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
>Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
>WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
>Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
>2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
>Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 00:13:31 UTC