W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: MobileOK Tests (was [agenda] Agenda for BPWG Call 2008-02-07)

From: Paul Walsh <paul@segala.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:39:30 +0000
Message-Id: <C73730B9-C296-4DD9-8E10-C710105DB584@segala.com>
Cc: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>


On 8 Feb 2008, at 17:13, Sean Owen wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2008 11:42 AM, Paul Walsh <paul@segala.com> wrote:
>> I agree. It was originally agreed that the mobileOK basic would be
>> made up of tests which were relatively easy to comply with. Whether
>> these were machine-testable or not, was not relevant. However,
>> further down the line, this changed for some very strange reasons. We
>> now have mobileOK basic which is machine-testable - even if they
>> aren't necessarily easy to comply with.
>
> Again the logic was: it's overwhelming useful to provide something
> machine-testable. So let's put into Basic everything that is easy to
> comply with or important, and also machine testable. But then there
> were repeated claims that the suite was too easy -- this is the reason
> you are looking for. So it became everything machine testable. I think
> that's fine. It's a simple condition, and has resulted in a useful
> specification and tool.

Sounds good.
>
>> "since they would need a certified mobileOK evaluator to test"
>>
>> What do you mean by this?
>
> Well let's say we put out a suite of tests. Does X pass it or not? if
> it's machine testable, then you run some presumably correct
> implementation of the machine tests on X. You could implement it
> yourself but you don't have the time, and are anyways not sure you
> will come out with the "right" answers. If anyone then cares to ask
> why you pass, it's not so great to say, well, I wrote code that says I
> pass. It would be much more credible to say that a third-party system
> passed you.
>
> Analogously, for a human testable suite, you might suggest that
> individual developers are going to effectively implement mobileOK Pro
> themselves by becoming an expert on mobileOK Pro, executing the tests
> and assuming they're right, and then feel it's useful to say, I pass
> the tests because I say so. I assume this model really also entails
> some third-party "implementation", and that involves humans, and
> involves time and money.
>
> From there we get into the same old circles... there is no doubt some
> market for this, but at the moment, given that mobileOK Basic is not
> exactly taking the world by storm, I think we do need to honestly ask
> who mobileOK Pro is for. Is there at least one potential customer
> someone can identify? I do hear strong convictions here that this is
> not only important to do, but that it's somehow dangerous not to do
> it. I would just like to continue to understand why.

There are two very different conversations there. Both should be  
discuss separately.

1. Self claims and Independent verification by trusted third parties

All Trustmarks have a use case for both self-claims and independent  
verification by trusted third parties. Neither one should be  
dismissed and neither one should be mandated. Why? Well because some  
companies see the benefit of independent verification and some don't.

The importance of independent verification has always been debated  
and to a lesser extent, always will be. Some people will simply never  
see the benefit, no matter how much it is explained to them. With  
about 12 years experience in this field, I spent a lot of my time (as  
everyone else in the same field has done) educating people about risk  
mitigation vs cost of testing.

2. Why we need mobileOK Pro

mobileOK Pro is intended to raise the bar in terms of improving 'how  
mobile friendly' Web sites are in the future.

Web accessibility (WCAG 1.0) has three conformance levels; Single A,  
Double A and Triple A. Single A is easy to achieve. Double A is more  
time consuming and costly to achieve. Triple A is almost technically  
impossible and some guidelines are outdated to the point that  
conformance to them make a site less accessible (I won't bore you  
with the detail).

If every Web site complied with WCAG Single A, the Web overall, would  
be much more accessible to more people than it is today. That would  
be a fantastic achievement so Single A is a great starting point.  
However, Single A is not a high enough standard to strive for. Whilst  
it's a great starting point, all Web site owners should strive for  
Double A in the long run.

Some Web sites will immediately aim for Single A as an easy win and  
stop there, whilst others will immediately strive for Double A. The  
insane and inexperienced will aim for Triple A. The smart ones will  
aim for as many guidelines across the three levels as possible.

I see mobileOK basic as a conformance claim that's slightly higher  
quality than WCAG Single A. I see mobileOK Pro as a claim that's  
slightly higher quality than Double A. Add the additional BPs which  
are not possible to verify without too much ambiguity and you get  
Triple A.

If I'm still not being clear, or anyone would like me to explain  
myself further, I'll happily point to a blog post which I believe  
will explain exactly what I'm trying to articulate here.

Thanks
Paul
>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 17:39:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC