Re: comments on WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20061113

Thanks again for your comments; I am incorporating several changes
into the latest draft right now.

On 11/23/06, Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de> wrote:
> > Agreed, the basic test presented here does not catch all cases which
> > go against the best practice. I believe we should work on specifying a
> > human-verifiable test in mobileOK. We can update Appendix C
> > accordingly.
>
> I would find it confusing if something fails a test for mobileOK basic,
> but passes a test for mobileOK "sophisticated". The other way round
> would be ok (e.g. the test for SCROLLING).

Agreed, this should never be the case. mobileOK is a superset of
mobileOK Basic and will require that the basic tests pass, so, the
pages which are mobileOK should be a subset of those which are
mobileOK Basic. That is to say, the mobileOK test should always be
stricter.


> > You mention that transparent images may be used for screen readers --
> > what is this application?
>
> There is a technique to add information which is obvious for users
> equipped with a 2D-rendering visual browser, but also valuable for users
> equipped with a 1D-rendering textual or voice browser or screen reader
> (e.g. skip links, or text "main menu") using a transparent image and
> adding this information in the alt attribute of this image. There are
> other techniques for this purpose (e.g. hiding with CSS) though.

Interesting -- given the spirit of the group discussions, I think that
some kind of CSS-based technique would be preferable here. At least,
this can be something where we "wait and see" whether a substantial
number of pages are failing mobileOK Basic tests for this reason.

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 18:46:39 UTC