Re: Mobile accessibility document, Version 24 June 2008

Thanks Alan!
A few remarks below.

Alan Chuter wrote:
> * The audience section has been removed. Should this document have one? 
> Should it be shorter than it was [3]? Or should it go altogether?

+1 to remove the section altogether

> * The section that was called "The Problem of Overlapping Requirements" 
> is now called "Managing Overlapping Requirements". It has been suggested 
> that it be called "The Benefits of Overlapping Requirements".

The use of "Benefits" is clearer, but "the benefits of overlapping 
requirements" sounds obscure to me. The section is mostly about why 
reading this document is useful. I can't think of a better title though.

> * The Overview page has been pruned and is much shorter and clearer now. 
> There is a table to help readers choose which pages they need to read 
> ("How to Use This Document" section). Is it really clearer now?

- The table is much clearer than it was.
- I'm not sure why there are both a bullet list AND a table for the very 
same purpose. I would rather keep one OR the other.
- Looking at the very long links, I wonder whether we could not simply 
change the titles of the pages to, for instance "From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 
2.0" and use the remaining text as a tagline. This would shorten the 
links to the pages without losing any meaning, IMO.

Some other points:
- I had missed that point in previous drafts but the term "Relationship" 
disappeared from the title of the document. Although I tend to prefer 
shorter titles, I think it's much clearer if we leave it in. Was it 
removed on purpose?

- I'm not a huge fan of the link to the table of contents at the top of 
the overview page, especially because it does not appear in the other 
pages (where it would not make much sense indeed).

- Links are sometimes confusing, because the same kind of link may 
target other parts of the document itself OR the MWBP/WCAG document it 
refers to. For instance, in "From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0", the links in 
the "Nothing" section link to the definition of the SC in the WCAG 2.0 
document, whereas the "same" links in the "Something" section link to 
further down in the document. I understand there's a rationale behind 
that, but that's confusing. Maybe we could always link to the underlying 
recommendation and complete the links of the Something section with "see 
how" or "see below" links? Any better idea?
(Note pages are not consistent, but I suppose that's because the SC/BP 
in the "Nothing" section still appear elsewhere in the other pages)

- In "From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0", in the "Addressing WCAG 2.0 Success 
Criteria" section, each SC ends with a "Refer to" link. And then there's 
a "Back to list of WCAG 2.0 checkpoints". Seems redundant to have both. 
Whatever we keep, the other pages should be consistent with this one.

Typo fixes:
- In all pages except the overview page, the "MWBP to WCAG 2.0" link in 
the navigation at the top of the page is name "MWBP to WCAG 2.0 Compliance"
- From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 2.0:
   * in the "Sumary of work" section, some SC links include a comma, 
some don't. I don't think there should be any comma here. "Section 
Headings" is not in the 2.4.10 link.
   * some "possibly", "partially" link to the definition of these terms 
in the overview page. Some don't. I'd remove all the links here (and 
maybe add a reminder at the top of the section?)


Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 07:04:46 UTC