- From: <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:05:08 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) <ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com>
- Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
[Sorry for the duplicate]
Your comment on the document as a whole:
Accessibility should be addressed more specifically, as the mobile Web
(and its
specific issues) does not seem to be in the scope of the WAI/WCAG
guidelines 2.0,
currently under updating. The provided cross-referencing is beneficial but
it does not
provide enough substance.
Working Group Resolution:
The group took inspiration from WCAG 1.0 (and links back to it), but the
accessibility experts are in the WAI groups. As such, we think further
work on accessibility in the mobile context is out of our scope.
----
Your comment on the document as a whole:
Access to the mobile Web through a speech user interface is not covered by
the
present draft version. We believe it should be addressed (also as there is
excellent
work in W3C to cross-reference), as it is an important accessibility
enabler to young
and older users and users with temporary or permanent functional
abilities.
Working Group Resolution:
This is out of scope of the current phase of work of the Best Practices,
as stated in our scope document:
"""
As the Mobile Web Initiative is primarily concerned with accessing content
that would currently be rendered in a desktop or laptop browser, the BPWG's
focus is currently on best practices that are most pertinent to
"traditional" browsing. However, in future phases, the group may broaden
the scope of its work in order to take into account other content
presentation options that may be available on mobile devices - e.g., using
the emerging multimodal technologies."""
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-mobile-bp-scope-20051220/#s2
----
Your comment on the document as a whole:
Setup and configuration is currently considered by consumers as a major
difficulty,
when trying to access mobile services and applications. As this document
does not
address setup and configuration-specific issues and it does not provide
such
guidelines, it should reference available recommendations and best
practices
developed in other standard bodies and fora, in order to improve the user
experience.
Working Group Resolution:
Setup and configuration is out of scope for the Mobile Web Best Practices
which only focus on the delivery of content to Mobile Web devices.
----
Your comment on the document as a whole:
We believe that Web site access through mobile devices would benefit from
the
provision of some minimum-level requirements on terminal capabilities and
browser
features. If this cannot be achieved, other work should be referenced.
Working Group Resolution:
The Default Delivery Context (section 1.4 in the Last Call Working Draft)
provides the assumed minimum-level requirements alluded to.
----
Your comment on the document as a whole:
We have the impression that the development process of this draft was
somewhat
forced to be somewhat too fast. We would recommend to leave more time for
stakeholder’s involvement and qualitative fine-tuning, when developing
future
deliverables.
Working Group Resolution:
The development of this draft has been somewhat faster than is customary.
This is intentional. This is primarily a practical rather than theoretical
art and we think there will be great benefit from feedback from
implementation.
----
Your comment on Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0:
1. The title of the document is somewhat confusing. The present document
is definitely
not about best practices for mobile network and system capacity
optimization for
reliable mobile Web access or other, related technical issues. As the
document is
providing best design practices of Web sites accessed through a mobile
network and
a telecommunication terminal, we suggest the title to be updated to
“Best Usability
Practices for Mobile Web Sites” (in accordance with the last sentence
in chapter
1.3.2).
Working Group Resolution:
We take your point, but this is the title established by the Group's
charter. We have sub-titled the document "basic guidelines" to convey the
idea that many more advices could be given.
----
Your comment on 1.1 Purpose of the Document:
A terminology issue: a device does not necessarily have a network
connection and a
user interface (e.g. a pencil or a wrist watch). We would like to know if
this is defined
differently for the purpose of this document (the definition is not
included in the draft).
Otherwise, we consider proposing to use “devices with a network
connection and a
user interface”, or simply, “terminals”, in the entire document.
Working Group Resolution:
We do not wish to limit the scope to connected devices. For example, a
periodically synchronised device requires the same best practices for
display of web content.
----
Your comment on 1.1 Purpose of the Document:
Chapter 1.1, Purpose of the Document: The purpose should stretch beyond
“…to promote
more effective delivery…” and provide design guidelines applicable to
the usability and
accessibility of the mobile Web or, at least, specifics of interacting
with mobile Web sites.
Working Group Resolution:
We agree and have changed the text to read "to improve the user experience
of the Web on mobile devices."
----
Your comment on 1.3 Scope:
Chapter 1.3, Scope: The WCAG guidelines reference should be more specific,
refer to the
latest version or relate to the WAI guidelines family, where applicable.
Working Group Resolution:
We refer only to ratified documents and not to works in progress.
----
Your comment on 1.3.2 Usability:
Chapter 1.3.2, Usability:
- There are more than three aspects of mobile usability but there are
three aspects of
mobile Web usability (add “Web”).
- The relation between these aspects should be described in detail (not
only their
individual characteristics). This description should include
accessibility.
- Site usability is not only about effectiveness (see definition of
Usability).
Working Group Resolution:
We have removed the section on usability.
----
Your comment on 1.3.3 One Web:
Chapter 1.3.3, One Web: With the currently available technologies and
implementations
(and considering the product generation gaps), it is not always desirable,
beneficial nor
affordable to consumers to access the same information, provided on the
same format,
regardless of the access network and device.
Although technology will improve continuously, consumer requirements will
be strongly
influenced by the context of mobile use (on the move, limited screen and
keyboard,
disturbing environment, et cetera), will not change that radically.
Due to the context of mobile use, terminal capability variations,
bandwidth issues, access
rights and mobile network capabilities, this principle should be
reconsidered.
Even if it is easier to develop content for one Web, there are specific
issues that need to be
addressed.
Providing a good and affordable mobile Web user experience becomes even
more important
to roaming consumers (presently, there is no low-cost global roaming
tariff plan for mobile
data devices).
We would like to discuss the approach taken and would appreciate to hear
your arguments
for the “One Web” approach taken.
Working Group Resolution:
We already address these issues, but we have slightly revised part of the
One Web definition to be more explicit and use the word "representation"
(as defined in the DI glossary) in the following text:
"As discussed in [Scope] One Web means making, as far as is reasonable,
the same information and services available to users irrespective of the
device they are using. However it does not mean that exactly the same
information is available in exactly the same representations across all
devices. This is due to issues such as the context of mobile use, terminal
capability variations, bandwidth issues and mobile network capabilities.
Furthermore, some services and information are more suitable for and
targeted at particular user contexts."
We have also added a link to the Thematic Consistency Best Practice, which
give more context on this point.
----
Your comment on 1.4 Default Delivery Context:
Chapter 1.4, Default Delivery Context: More detailed specifications should
be provided. In
addition, possible fall-back solutions should be mentioned.
Working Group Resolution:
We have added links to the details of the specifications referenced in the
default delivery context. The fall-back solutions belongs in the techniques
document.
----
Your comment on 2.1 Presentation Issues:
Chapter 2.1, Presentation Issues: In addition to the controls not being
presented as
intended, other issues such as the lack of the necessary interaction
control elements and
functions should be mentioned.
Working Group Resolution:
We feel that the section is sufficently detailed to convey the sense that
is intended. It is supposed to background material rather than and
exhaustive explanation.
----
Your comment on 2.2
Input:
Chapter 2.2, Input: “…hard to type…” should be replaced by
“…difficult to enter…”. As this
is a far more complex issue than just entering characters, aspects
relating to the support,
handling, mapping, sorting and transmission of characters should be
addressed.
This change should also be considered with respect to the fact that speech
technology
enables and improves access to ICT (including mobile terminal devices and
the mobile Web)
for disabled people (e.g. people with upper limb impairments) and very
young children, who
will be able to input data and interact with mobile devices through speech
user interfaces.
Working Group Resolution:
This is background overview section and is not intended to be an
exhaustive explanation. We deal with speech/voice in Phase 2.
----
Your comment on 2.3
Bandwidth and Cost
:
Chapter 2.3, Bandwidth and Cost: In addition to transmission speed, there
are setup,
configuration, access right, reliability, home network cost issues and
roaming cost issues
involved. These should be addressed or at least, mentioned. See also
comment on chapter
1.3.3 above.
Working Group Resolution:
This is background overview section and is not intended to be an
exhaustive explanation.
----
Your comment on 2.4 User Goals
:
Chapter 2.4, User Goals: The first sentence should be rewritten. See also
comment on
chapter 1.3.3 above.
Working Group Resolution:
Please suggest a rewrite or specifics if you think this is especially
problematic.
----
Your comment on 2.7 Advantages:
Chapter 2.7, Advantages: “Connected” should be added to the popularity
reasons.
Working Group Resolution:
We have added that aspect to the list of advantages.
----
Your comment on 3 Delivery Model Architecture:
Chapter 3, Delivery Model Architecture: The entire section after “3”
should be numbered
separately (e.g. made 3.1 Introduction).
Working Group Resolution:
It is the document convention to have introductory text following major
headings.
----
Your comment on 5.1.1 Establish the Context of the Device:
Chapter 5.1.1.2, How to do it: The references should be made more
explicit.
Working Group Resolution:
This BP has been removed.
----
Your comment on 5.1.4 Testing:
Chapter 5.1.4, Testing: Update the recommendation to “…devices and
provided specific
software versions…”.
Working Group Resolution:
We have added the suggested mention of software versions.
----
Your comment on [URIS] Keep the URIs...:
Chapter 5.2.1, URIs of Site Entry Points: The recommendation should be
updated to cover
aspects of direct manipulation (clickable) and character entry support.
Working Group Resolution:
We have added a note on non-URI-typing access to a web site:
"it is expected that users will prefer to use alternative methods of
obtaining URIs when available - such as following a hyperlink (from an
e-mail, SMS or other Web page), WAP Push, 2D bar code, color bar code,
RFID tag and Bluetooth."
----
Your comment on [NAVBAR] Provide min...:
Chapter 5.2.2.2, How to do it: Provide advice on how to implement
device-based wrapping.
Working Group Resolution:
The group thinks this topic would be a better fit as part of the
techniques, on which we welcome contributions:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/techs/
----
Your comment on [THEMATIC_CONSISTENC...:
Chapter 5.2.4.1, What it means: Connectivity and download speed issues
should be
mentioned.
Working Group Resolution:
We've added a note to the sentence "irrespective of differences in
presentation capabilities": "and access mechanism."
----
Your comment on [ACCESS_KEYS] Assign...:
Chapter 5.2.6.1, What it means: This is a far more complex problem than
just the limited keyboard (12-key keypads and soft-and hardware-based
keyboards should be covered). In addition, aspects relating to the
support, handling, mapping, sorting and transmitting
characters should be addressed.
Working Group Resolution:
This is a specific best practice on use of "access keys" whose support is
known to be quite uniform across mobile devices.
We have added a clarification on the limitations of these accesskeys and
the devices keyboards:
"When building a list of links use numbered lists and assign access keys
appropriately. It is recognized that not all characters can be used as
access keys as many mobile devices have a limited keyboard."
----
Your comment on [ERROR_MESSAGES]
Pr...:
Chapter 5.4.13, Error messages: The purpose of error messages should be
dual:
1. To provide information to the user; and
2. To provide information to the service provider.
The recommendation should cover both aspects.
Working Group Resolution:
Telling providers to check their error logs is out of scope for this
document.
----
Your comment on A Sources (Non-Normative):
Annex A, Sources (Non-Normative): It would be highly desirable to
reference WCAG 2.0
(under drafting) instead of the outdated 1.0 version from 1999.
Working Group Resolution:
We refer only to ratified recommendations.
----
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:13:50 UTC