- From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:57:46 +0100
- To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
> ... There are cases > where you have to do something specific beyond the requirements of > mobileBP to meet the requirements of the relevant checkpoint in WCAG, I think that this is the case for nearly most of the BPs; there are very few that do map directly to a WACG checkpoint, so the list is quite short. However, as I said yesterday, in section 4, "Does it give me WCAG compliance?" there is a list: "To summarise, for WCAG 1.0, compliance with MWBP ensures that content already complies with checkpoints... with no further effort, while ... simply do not apply. With some extra effort or simply considering different user needs, it is quite feasible to also comply with ..." which is an accurate summary (although it's out of date). Although it perhaps isn't made clear, with that information a developer can happily say "So I already complied with all these checkpoints without knowing it; maybe now I'll go a little further and aim for the others, too." I think that that list is the basis for what Miguel is proposing, "If your page complies with MWBP [mOK is not in the scope] and you want to comply with WCAG 1.0 Level A... you have already complied with checkpoints xxx, and almost with xxx, so you need to now comply with these xxx". I think that such a list would be useful for people to see at a glance what may lie ahead, and how much effort is involved. On 28/11/2007, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:05:08 +0100, Miguel Garcia > <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote: > > > In a previous mail I talked about including a summary table with the > > mapping between MWBP and WCAG in the document. > > > > My idea is to extend the table so it becomes a quick guide of how to > > make a mobile OK Basic (and later Pro) compliance page conforms to WCAG > > 1.0. > > > > I have attached just a outline because I'm not sure if this document is > > interesting to the group. > > I think this is a good thing. I am not sure if it should be in the same > document, or whether we should break the documents out. There are cases > where you have to do something specific beyond the requirements of > mobileBP to meet the requirements of the relevant checkpoint in WCAG, so > it could become a big document (it should also link to techniques or the > relevant WCAG checkpoint at least) - especially if we do the inverse as > well (which would also be good). > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha > > > -- Email: achuter@technosite.es Blogs http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 09:57:59 UTC