mobileOK Pro Tests Version 1

x.x Name

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

None

[Pass]

[Warn]

[Fail]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4 Tests

4.1 Access Keys

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

This test applies to primary navigation links that occur across all pages within a given web space which is itself defined by the presence of those navigation links. Such navigation links should be associated with access keys. Furthermore, the access key assignment MUST be identical for those links.

Access keys may be indicated to end users in any of three ways

• Link decoration
• Summary page
• Listing on a sitemap

Test procedure:

Where there are elements, particularly navigation links and form controls, that would benefit from access keys:

• If access keys are not assigned at least to the primary navigation links found on all pages within a Web space defined by the presence of those links [FAIL]
• If access keys for primary navigation links are not identical across all pages: [FAIL]
• If access keys are not indicated in at least one of the ways cited above: [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.4 Background Image readability

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests, but it is worth noting that the DDC does support background images which are part of CSS 1.

Interpretation of the Best Practice

The use of patterned or photographic background images behind text is discouraged but not prohibited.

Test procedure:

If background images are used, the COLOR CONTRAST test must be passed for the ratio between the overlying text and each color used in the background image. Otherwise: [FAIL]

Examples:

• The Ishihara Test for Color Blindness, for example, shows background and text with patterning and insufficient color contrast.
• The contrast between this text and its black background color is 5:1

Open issues:

None

4.5 Balance

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None.

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If the page contains more than 30 links: [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.6 Device Capabilities

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

This test cannot cover all the possible capabilities that might be found in devices.
Unlike the DDC, many real devices support scripting, XML HTTP requests, DOM capabilities, cookies and CSS including media queries.
However, it is usually possible to detect a presentation that is artificially constrained by the limited and largely hypothetical Default Delivery Context.

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

Rather trying to find where device capabilities are not utilized it is more conclusive to identify those instances where the content is wrongfully limited on a device more capable than the DDC.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• For each property of the DDC (e.g. screen width), identify some unadapted, original content that would exceed the value given by that property of the DDC
• Request content on a device more capable than the DDC for that particular property
• If content is rendered according to the constraints of the DDC: [FAIL]

Examples:

• Web sites that offer video streams should not offer such content for the DDC, however, it should be offered to users of devices that do support video.
• Presentation should adjust itself to the optimal display for this device and not be unnecessarily limited to 120 pixels wide.
• JavaScript should be used for form validation on devices that support it as this can reduce network traffic and latency.
• In forms scripting may be used to adjust the presentation or state of a control based on the input already supplied.

Open issues:

None

4.7 Central Meaning

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

• Visual-only.
• Does not attempt to evaluate the meaningfulness of the visible content (would be too subjective).

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Determine what is the main content of the page. This is content that is unique to the page and does not repeat across several pages.
• If none of the main content of the web page is visible without scrolling: [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.8 Limited

Note to BPWG:

Advise on the use of the type attribute on links to provide information in machine-readable format for future user agents.

Limitations of this test:

None

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• The information contained in the link text must describe (e.g. contextual information, content type, file size) the content that will be retrieved. If not, [FAIL].
• Content provided or linked to should be suitable for the mobile context, unless provided in a controlled environment where its unsuitability is know a priori.

Examples:

• Content may be suitable in a controlled environment, with logon for entry, for example for retrieval of large medical scans on mobile devices.

Open issues:

None

4.9 Clarity

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

This test is subjective and cannot be conclusive. It must therefore remain at a warning level to be informative.

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If the text is, for the context, considered to be unnecessarily complex or verbose [WARN]

Examples:

• Consider the purpose of the page. If the purpose of the page is to deliver a specific piece of information, that information should be readily extracted without excessive scrolling or scanning of text.
• In the English language the Fogg test can give an indication of complexity. A level of rough 7 or 8 would be ideal. For other languages this does not apply.

Open issues:

None

4.10 Color Contrast

Note to BPWG:

This test could well be machine testable as there are publically accessible applications which compare color values.

Limitations of this test:

This test is actually defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#G18, to which we refer here

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If the contrast ratio is less than 5:1, according to http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#G18 [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.11 Content Format Preferred

Note to BPWG:

This test is machine testable and we are not sure why is it not covered in the basic tests. The number of alternative formats is small and could be searched for by issuing subsequent appropriate requests.

Limitations of this test:

None

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

1. Determine which alternative formats are available.
2. If no alternative formats are available [PASS], otherwise
3. Change the quality factors of the accept headers to express a preference for an available alternative format
4. If the content which is delivered does not reflect that change: [FAIL]

Examples:

Typical changes to preferences such as the following should be reflected accordingly:

• GIF and JPEG
• Character encoding
• Markup language

Open issues:

This, I believe, is not an issue since content negotiation, which is called for here, only works if no extension is listed.

Is the type explicit in, for example, links, by filename (<img src="imagefile.png"), or is it by content negotiation (<img src="imagefile" with no filename extension.)?

4.12 Control Labeling

Note to BPWG:

This test is machine testable

Limitations of this test:

None

Interpretation of the Best Practice:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• If there are user-visible form elements and no label elements: [FAIL]
• If the for attribute is not defined and the form control is not contained within the label element: [FAIL]
• If the for attribute is present but does not correspond to the id attribute of a form control: [FAIL]
• If the label does not describe the purpose of the form control: [FAIL]

Examples:

• A label which requests a persons name but is associated with a birth date field, fails.

Open issues:

• Are there ever presentational / layout reasons why having a form label isn't appropriate? e.g. if there's only one form element and the meaning of that element is given by the context of the page?
• Are empty labels "" acceptable, if the meaning of the field is made clear in some other fashion?

4.13 Control position

Note to BPWG:

The BP says labels ashould be positioned “properly” but gives no clue as to what this means. It should either clarify what is intended or this BP should be deprecated."

Limitations of this test:

• The aspect of properly aligning with a form control has been limited to mean “in the vicinity”, as the positioning to the left or below an input field is not the only way to use them.

  Note by Alan Chuter: (first bullet point) The BP says “Make sure that where the label goes is consistent and close to the form control so re-flowing or adapting the content intelligently will always recognize label controls and keep them together.” This means that the user agent, when “adapting the content intelligently” will recognise the controls [and label text] and keep them together. If they are just positioned so they look good visually, the UA (which can't see them) will not necessarily be able to understand. However, the convention arose in the first place to make the form visually easier to use, with the meaningful text label at the left of the screen, perhaps preceded by a radio button. This makes good sense for the mobile device with its small viewport, but is not mentioned in the BP. If the controls are not used consistently (according to convention), then there is no point in doing the BP. Either we follow the convention or we deprecate the BP.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• If CSS is turned off and labels are not clearly associated with a form control [FAIL]
• If the label cannot be clearly associated with a form control [FAIL]
• If the association is only achieved by means of positional CSS [FAIL]

Examples:

See Gez Lemon's article on “Label Positioning”. The examples should be in the BP document.

I was not able to find any examples that should be included here. There are discussions shown on the page. Alan, please specify.

Open issues:

None

4.14 Cookies

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

• The tester can not know with certainty all the functionality that may rely on cookies. It is however possible to apply this check to the main intent of the page
• The test does not deal with potential alternatives which may be used.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

1. Identify the main functionality of the site that is important for the user and may rely on state. See examples.
2. Evaluate the funcionality with cookies supported correctly.
3. Disable cookies supported. Evaluate the funcionality and compare with that evaluated in 2.
4. If the content or function cannot be accessed without cookies [FAIL]

Examples:

Where failure due to required use of cookies is essential, examples are marked as [FAIL], otherwise [PASS].

• User login, cookie required to maintain state to avoid repeat login on every page [FAIL].
• User login, state maintained across accesses to avoid entering name and password each time [PASS]. Without cookies support behaviour is degraded, but usable.

This is the original text of this example. I believe the prose is somewhat more accessible, than the above short form

A site that requires a user to login might store that login in a cookie to save the user typing in their credentials each time they visit. If cookies are unavailable, an acceptable degradation would mean that the user was prompted for a login each time they visited that page, but would browse the site without further logins from then on. A poor (and unacceptable) cookieless degradation would render a site useless by always checking for a non-existent cookie and so not letting the user past the login page.

Open issues:

None

4.15 Deficiencies

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

This test cannot test all existing deficiencies of devices. Rather the test limited to the author/provider being aware of common deficiencies and do something about those. This test is not intended to test pixel perfect rendering across devices, but rather focuses on usability across devices.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If there are common deficiencies of devices, which impinge significantly on usability of the content being offered, measures must be taken to work around those deficiencies. If not [FAIL]

Examples:

Some devices which render tables badly will wrap columns by default, if the meaning of the page is dependent on layout which does not render well on these sorts of devices then an alternative rendering should be used when that user-agent is detected.

Open issues:

Can we make use of - http://dev.w3.org/2008/mobile-test/doc.html to identify deficiencies of a device?

4.16 Error Messages

Note to BPWG:

An external tester can not know what errors generate error messages, or what languages are available.

That is not quite true. At least a 404 is easy to produce and available languages can be inquired.

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

1. Provoke a server-side error.

• For example: Request a URL known not to correspond to any endpoint on the site.
• Develop further tests to provoke error status generation

2. Examine the content of the error page. All the following must be true, if not [FAIL].

It must:

• Explain in non-technical language the error which has occurred.
• Be suitable for the DDC, at a minimum, (ie it must comply with all other tests).
• Provide at least one of the following links: site home page, back, reload.
• Be in the language the user was reading on the site when the error occurred.

Examples:

None

Open issues:

The mechanism by which a context specific error message can be displayed in not clear. For example, how to display a French error message if the user was in the French section of the site.

4.17 Fonts

Note to BPWG:

The intent of the BP stated in 5.4.16.1 is that meaning should be conveyed without relying on font-related styling. However, the "Machine Test" under 5.4.16.2 fails on any presence of any font-related styling (whether it conveys meaniong or not).

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

1. Check for presence of font-related styling, by means of the font element, or the bold, italic or underline elements, or CSS.
2. Examine the content with CSS enabled and disabled. If the meaning is significantly different [FAIL]
3. Examine any font-related elements present and the effect they have on the meaning of the content. If they are used to convey meaning significantly, [FAIL]
4. Check for the presence of the "face" element. If only one font has been defined [FAIL]

Examples:

• Emphasis expressed using bold or underline.
• Quotes that are indicated by italics rather than enclosed in quotation marks or quotation markup.

Open issues:

None

4.18 Graphics for Spacing

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

This test does not rely on a particular graphics format that are being evaluated.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This BP is partially covered by the GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING MobileOK basic Test.

Test procedure:

Does the content comply with GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING MobileOK Basic Test? If not [FAIL].

View all images in a page, for example in a separate list of images, or by outlining them. For XHTML these will be included using the <img> element.
Determine visually whether any of the images do not convey information and are used for spacing. If they are [FAIL].

Note: Spacer images do not convey useful information. They are normally very small.

Examples:

• 1 pixel square image used to seperate other content.
• A small image with the same colour as the surrounding content.
• Single Pixel GIF Trick on Creating Killer Websites

Open issues:

Define unambiguously what is and is not a spacer image.

Should this test exclude 1x1px advertising images? I.e those which send page hit data back to a server for user analysis? These are commonly used on e-commerce sites and wont be going away anytime soon.

I believe not, because those images are usually not anchored in the content itselb but are pulled from a tracking server.

4.19 Link Target ID

Note to BPWG:

The abbreviation "ID" included in the handle of the BP, is confusing and suggests it involves the ID attribute. The test covers the use of hreflang, type and charset attributes which are not mentioned in the BP.

Limitations of this test:

This test only deals with the descriptive portion of a link

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

1. Each link in the text is described by attributes as follows. If not, [FAIL].
   • If the target content is in a language different to that of the tested content, it is correctly marked with hreflang attribute;
   • If it is in a format other than that of the tested content, it is correctly described by the type attribute;
   • If it uses a character encoding different to that of the tested content, it is described by the charset attribute.
2. Check that the link text (including alternative text for any non-text elements) clearly describes the effect of activating the element. If not, [FAIL]
3. Select elements pairwise. Check that two links with same link text (including alternative text for non-text elements) and same title attribute (if provided) point to the same resource. If not, [FAIL].

(These liberally adapted from UWEM 1.0 13.1).

Examples:

• Link with only the text "Click here."
• Multiple links in same page with same content but pointing to different things.
• Link from an HTML page to a large video file that does not mention format or size.
• Link to content in a language different to that of the current page.

Open issues:

Can contextual information can provide enough explanation for a “click here” link?

What is meant here is that there are instances were enough information is provided in the preceeding or surrounding text that a more detailed link description is not needed

Accessibility evangelists would crucify us if we did not discourage the use of 'click here' link text.

4.20 Minimize Keystrokes

This test is covered by tests for AVOID_FREE_TEXT, URIS, CENTRAL_MEANING and PROVIDE_DEFAULTS.

4.21 Navbar

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Is there basic navigation on the page before the other content? If not [FAIL].
• Does all the navigation detected in [1]

  What was the link referred to by [1]?

  fit on a single line in the DDC? If not [FAIL].

• Is a some of the main content visible without scrolling (sufficient to get an idea of the rest of the content)? If not [FAIL]

  Alan had suggested to make the main content "text content". I disagree, as main content could also be an image.

Examples:

Navigation bar consisting of only: Home; Up; Site map; Search...

Open issues:

• How much navigation is admissible?
• Can it be quantified in terms of the number of links and the number of characters?

4.22 Navigation

Note to BPWG:

There seems to be confusion in the MWBP document. The title refers to “consistent navigation”. However, the second paragraph discusses “Intelligent grouping” and the “How to do it” section suggests providing a drill-down list based on section headings, rather than about being consistent (it doesn't say use drill-down lists consistently). The latter is more relevant to [STRUCTURE] than to this BP. What was the intent, consistent navigation across a site or just good navigation in a page? This test assumes that consistency is what must be tested.

Limitations of this test:

• Tester must be able to delimit what constitutes the site. This is assumed to be the pages in the sample scope.
• Test has to define what a navigation mechanism is.
• It tests for consistency, not good navigation design.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• For all the pages in the sample, examine the navigation mechanisms in the pages. These include inline links, groups of links (for example menus) in different parts of the page.
• If navigation mechanisms are different on different pages of the sample other than in a way relevant to the difference between the pages, [FAIL].

The word "sample" in the Test procedure was fitted with links which were non-sensical. Are there samples missing or was some other point being made?

Examples:

• A site navigation menu is present on all pages and only changes the presentation of the section and the current page, [PASS]
• A site navigation menu is present on all pages and changes structure and presentation of the links [FAIL].
• A site navigation menu is present on some pages but is not on the current page [FAIL].
• A site navigation menu is present on two pages of the sample but in a different place [FAIL].
• Inline links on other pages have a descriptive title but on the current page they do not.

Open issues:

More examples needed.

4.23 Non-text alternatives

Note to BPWG:

It is not made explicit in the BPs whether all non-text content is covered or only images included with the <img> element.

The BP is actually in conflict here. The BP itself says "Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element.".
Yet in "What to test" it says "Test for presence of alt attribute on images and text content on objects." and elaborates to make sure that objects are supported.
This is actually a subset of the BP itself and therefore in conflict.
Conversely, the BP states "every non-text element", which greatly increases the scope of this test.

Additionally, the BP does give a reference to the WCAG definition of "non-text element", which is:

Non-text Content [WCAG20] 2001-12-10
See also Normative, Informative
Non-text content includes images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

Therefore it seems sensible to adapt the text given by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 and deal with all the non-text elements

Limitations of this test:

This test deals with images only. Other non-text content is not mentioned explicitly in the Best Practices and is beyond the scope of this test. Such content includes horizontal rules, form controls, audio, video, multimedia elements, embedded objects and frames.

While not all non-text elements are supported by the DDC, tests should fokus on the super set of elements provided by markup languages.

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test covers the meaning of textual alternatives as well as additional non-text elements. The mobileOK Basic test only covers the presence or absence of the alt attribute for images and objects, not its value.

Test procedure:

Referring to http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-provide-equivalents

Non-text elements include images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

For XHTML content if any of the following UWEM 1.0 tests are not met, [FAIL].

• UWEM 1.0 Test 1.1_HTML_01 (note that this is same as Basic test, included for completeness
• UWEM 1.0 Test 1.1_HTML_02
• UWEM 1.0 Test 1.1_HTML_03
• UWEM 1.0 Test 1.1_HTML_04

Examples:

• Pass: Null value (alt=“”) for decorative images such as rounded corners in frame
• Pass: a text equivalent for an image of an upward arrow that links to a table of contents could be "Go to table of contents".
• Fail: alt value same as filename
• Fail: alt=“ ” (space)

Open issues:

None

4.24 Objects or scripts

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test covers the functionality of documents without objects or scripts, in addition to the mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If, without objects or scripts active or present, the document cannot be viewed or used such that the original intent of the web page is fulfilled [FAIL]

Examples:

From http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scripts

• Ensure that links that trigger scripts work when scripts are turned off or not supported (e.g., do not use "javascript:" as the link target). If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible page as per checkpoint 11.4. Refer also to guideline 1.
• With scripts turned off or not supported or objects not supported
  • a given form can still be filled out and submitted
  • images are displayed and alternative text is shown

Open issues:

None

4.25 Page Size Usable

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• If a given web page contains contiguous content, which could techically and semantically be separated into individual pages, and exceeds 3 screen sizes in length without page break [FAIL]

Examples:

• a long article that extends over 3 screens full without some type of page break would have to fail
• display of navigational information, requiring continuous movement through the map would pass, because additional maps are loaded as needed

Open issues:

None

4.26 Page Title

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test covers the meaning of the title, in addition to the existing mobileOK Basic Tests

Test procedure:

• Does the title thematically describe the main intent of the page content? If not [FAIL]
• Does the title repeat unchanged across more than 3 pages? If yes [FAIL]
• Is the title too long to display on a screen matching the Default Delivery Context [WARN]

Examples:

• a page with the primary purpose of offering ring tones along side small textual items should have this reflected in the title
• a title such as "Main Portal" which is repeated across more than 3 pages would have to fail
• conversely a title of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in an ebook page, across many pages, would be perfectly acceptable

Open issues:

None

4.27 Provide Defaults

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test covers the usefulness of the preselection, in addition to the existing mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• If the preselection for all form elements is useful. If not [FAIL]
• If no preselection exists and could meaningfully be added [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.28 Scrolling

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

Is the usage of horizontal scrolling justified? If not [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.29 Structure

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Document structure must be represented using proper structural markup rather than formatting effects. If not [FAIL]
• Where structural markup is used it should be used in accordance with the specification, i.e. elements should be properly nested according to their level. If not [FAIL]
• If structural markup is being used improperly, e.g. for formatting effect [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

It is not clear what structural markup is and which elements are included in this definition.

4.30 Style Sheets Size

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

There is no guidance on this parameter and a value was picked

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Are style sheets optimized? If not [FAIL]
• Are the style sheets utilized properly? If not [FAIL]
• Is a given style sheet appropriate in its size for the given content, keeping in mind chaching and loading effects? If not [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

• What is an optimized stylesheet?
• It is not clear if there should be some upper limit on style sheet use, for example as percentage of the total page size and if there should be, what percentage that should be.

4.31 Style Sheet Support

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If content is unreadable or unintelligible with stylesheets disabled [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.32 Suitable

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

Examine content to determine if, given the subject matter, it is appropriate in a mobile context. If not [FAIL]

Examples:

• a page showing Renaissance paintings in full size - FAIL
• a page showing a listing of Renaissance Paintings with thumb nails - PASS
• a page offering downloads of Windows XP - FAIL
• a full size x-ray image for in-field access by EMTs – PASS

Open issues:

None

4.33 Tab Order

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

Is the tab order of links, form controls and objects disorganized, illogical or confusing? If not [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.34 Tables Layout

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

In addition to the mobileOK Basic Tests, this test checks usage for layout.

Test procedure:

If tables are used in a fashion that could be achieved using CSS [FAIL]

Examples:

An image or text which are spaced and positioned with the aid of a table

Open issues:

CSS currently is itself deficient in that it does not support grid layout that auto adjusts vertically

4.35 Tables Support

Note to BPWG:

We had originally asked why this test is not included in basic tests, but the Open Issue below spells it out. How can it be determined if a device supports tables? Just look it up in UAProf or can the Checker do something here?

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

If the device does not support tables and the table element is found within the source code [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

Is there a way to programatically determine if a device supports tables?

4.36 Testing

Note to BPWG:

This BP gives no information about what is being tested, which calls this BP into question as being useless.

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Has this content been tested with emulators? If not [FAIL]
• Has this content been tested with actual devices? If not [FAIL]

I would also offer: Has this content been validated? If not [FAIL] and Has this content been tested with the Checker? If not [FAIL]

Examples:

None

Open issues:

None

4.37 URIs

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Is the entry Domain, including main and subdomain, less than 20 key presses on the device? If not [WARN]
• Does the entry URI require a file extension as in .html? If yes, [FAIL]
• Does the entry URI require the subdomain www? If yes, [FAIL]

Examples:

Entry URIs should not include information such as author, date, title. See “Cool URIs don’t change”

Open issues:

It seems that at least the file extension and the subdomain ought to be machine testable?

4.38 Use of color

Note to BPWG:

None

Limitations of this test:

None

Differences to mobileOK Basic Tests:

This test does not exist in mobileOK Basic Tests.

Test procedure:

• Excluding hyperlinks, does your site include any other blue or purple text? If yes, [WARN]
• When viewed on a monocrome screen, is all content still readable? If no, [FAIL]
• Is color used to represent information? If yes, [FAIL]

Examples:

• Using red text to represent an error message
• Using blue or purple text within the page as it makes it harder to distinguish hyperlinks
• Telling the user that important information is highlighted in yellow

Open issues:

None