Re: [agenda] BPWG Teleconference 2007-11-29

Dear BPWG participants,

In our teleconference agenda for tomorrow, I would like us to discuss
the following parts of the updated document concerning the ways that
WCAG 2.0 compliance helps ensure a better mobile experience and
compliance with MWBPs. Some of what follows has not been published
yet, and is cited here from the upcoming version.

** How WCAG Compliance can Benefit All Mobile Web Users
The success criteria for multimedia depend to a large extent on
support in multimedia players for audio description, full text
alternatives and sign language. WCAG gives a definition of audio
description [3] and full text alternative [4]. These will only be of
use to the general user if they are supported in multimedia players
for mobile devices.

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content [1]
I think this one is not very controversial. WCAG is wider in scope
than the MWBP. Please read and comment on it.

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.1 Captions (Prerecorded)
[quote]"How does it help mobile users? Mobile devices are often used
in situations with significant background noise that makes it
difficult to hear the audio track of multimedia content. It public
places it may be socially unacceptable to listen to the soundtrack. In
these situations captions enable the user to understand the multimedia
content."[end quote]
Is this realistic? Do mobile user agents (without assistive
technology) support captions? Is the screen on a mobile device large
enough for captions to be readable?

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.2 Audio Description or Full Text Alternative
[quote]"How does it help mobile users? Unlikely to provide any
additional benefit (if audio description is supported by device, might
conceivably help with understanding video on small screen). Does it
give me MWBP compliance?: No."[end quote]
This is the basic level and you can choose to provide one alternative
or the other (not at issue here). It's unlikely that mobile user
agents (without assistive technology) will support audio description,
so this probably doesn't give any benefit to the general mobile user.
On the other hand a full-text alternative might be usable, except that
the volume of text will be unreadable on a small screen especially if
there's only one window. If there is therefore no real added benefit,
is the above text adequate to say so?

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.3 Captions (Live)
This addresses the requirement to provide real-time captioning for
live multimedia (like press conference or sporting event). How does it
help mobile users? This would be beneficial to mobile users who can
not look and listen at the same time. But do mobile multimedia players
support closed (optional, turn on turn off) captions? Open
(always-visible) captions would be viewable but unacceptable to the
general audience. Does it give me MWBP compliance?: No.

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.4 Audio Description
Same considerations as for 1.2.2 (but at a higher level you have to
provide both Audio Description and Full Text Alternative).

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.5 Sign Language
The general mobile user is not likely to be fluent in sign language
and so this isn't going to benefit them. Correct?

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.6 (Audio Description (Extended))
Like Audio Description but freezing the video to allow more time.
Might benefit the mobile user if supported by mainstream mobile UAs,
but in reality probably not. What is the foreseen future level of
support?

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.2.7 Full Text Alternative
Same considerations as for 1.2.2.

WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.4.4 Resize text and 1.4.7 Resize and Wrap
Read [5]. There is no explicit mention of the WCAG techniques but C12,
C13 and C14 do ensure compliance with [MEASURES]. OTOH, "Calculating
size and position in a way that scales with text size" using script
does not and breaks compliance with [OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT]. Should this
be stated here? (there's no section for "Does it give break MWBP
compliance?"). Using only technique "G142: Using a technology that has
commonly-available user agents that support zoom" and not using
relative measures does not ensure compliance with [MEASURES] and could
lead to a difficult user experience on a mobile device. Proposed new
text "Some of the WCAG 2.0 Techniques, such as using named font sizes,
em units or percentages ensure compliance with [MEASURES] with no
further effort. Others such as G142: Using a technology that has
commonly-available user agents that support zoom and not using
relative units may make it difficult to comply with [MEASURES]".

Other updates to the document are described in the changelog [6] that
is now linked from the "Status of this Document" section.Important
changes include in the "How Mobile Web Best Practices can Benefit
Users with Disabilities" section separating out a list of BPs for
which there's nothing to say, thereby reducing the amount of text, and
making the section headings for BPs, CPs and SCs into links,
eliminating a paragraph for each one.

best regards,

Alan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20071125#wcag20_text-equiv-all
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20071125#wcag20_media-equiv-captions
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#audiodescdef
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#fullmultaltdef
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20071125#wcag20_visual-audio-contrast-scale
[6] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-mwbp-wcag#changelog



On 27/11/2007, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks
>
> Normal service resumes this week with the following proposed agenda:
>
> Chair: Jo
> Team Contact: tbc
> Known Regrets: none
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1. Good Standing Discussion
>
> 2. Reports from Task Forces
>
> a. CT
> b. Checker
> c. Results of Poll [1] on mobileOK Pro
>
> Note that the following answers have been received (corrected for Sean
> Owen having appeared to say "yes" by mistake):
>
> yes             8
> no              3
> concur  4
> abstain         1
>
> The poll is open till tomorrow night.
>
> 3. Alan's Accessibility Document
>
> As previewed last week, Alan has an updated document [2] which he will
> walk us through.
>
> 4. AOB
>
> Logistics:
>
> Date: 2007-11-29T1500Z
>
> Phone: tel:+16177616200, tel:+33489063499 or tel:+441173706152
>                 Code 2794 ("BPWG") followed by #
>
> IRC: irc.w3.org:6665#bpwg
>
> References
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/MobileOK-Pro/
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/la
> test
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Blogs
http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 12:29:49 UTC