Re: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document

I agree with Jo; I am also not sure what the proposed changes are. I  
thought there are five documents:

1. Working on WCAG 2.0 and MWBP together;
2. Starting from MWBP and extending/upgrading to WCAG 2.0
3. Starting from MWBP and extending/upgrading to WCAG 1.0
4. Starting from WCAG 1.0 and extending/upgrading to MWBP
5. Starting from WCAG 2.0 and extending/upgrading to MWBP

What would be the other two proposed documents?


On 14 Mar 2008, at 19:42, Jo Rabin wrote:

> I am all for simplifying it and making the document(s) more useful.
> But forgive me, I am not sure what this proposal means. How many
> documents do we end up with in total? What is the subject matter of  
> each
> of them? I'd like to think that we could treat WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 in the
> same documents and so reduce the overall number of documents as  
> well as
> complexity and possible confusion for the audience.
> Thanks
> Jo
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: []
> On
>> Behalf Of Alan Chuter
>> Sent: 14 March 2008 17:34
>> To: EOWG; MWI BPWG Public
>> Subject: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document
>> For those who were not on the call: It became apparent that something
>> was very wrong with this page of the document [1]. There was no
>> agreement on whether it was for going from MWBP to WCAG or the
>> reverse.
>> Following our discussion, and having stood back from the document for
>> a while I realised what I believe is the problem is that the  
>> documents
>> are structured around the mapping, not around what people are  
>> going to
>> use it for. For each BP there are two paragraphs:
>> 1. How does it especially help users with disabilities?
>> 2. Does it help meet any WCAG 2.0 success criteria?
>> While these appear to be slightly different takes on the same  
>> thing, I
>> think that they are quite different
>> 1. Is about the accessibility benefits of MWBP and the case for
>> adopting from MWBP starting from WCAG  (I've done WCAG, what is the
>> accessibility justification for adopting some or all of MWBP?). From
>> WCAG to MWBP.
>> 2. Is about the work involved in adopting WCAG starting from MWBP
>> (I've done MWBP, how much further do I have to go to comply with
>> WCAG?) From WCAG to MWBP.
>> So while the *mapping* is from MWBP to WCAG, the *use of the  
>> document*
>> goes both ways. These two things should not be in the same  
>> document, I
>> think.
>> So at the cost of expanding from five pages to seven, and turning it
>> inside out, I suggest splitting this up, so that we have:
>> 1. Extending/Upgrading from WCAG to MWBP.
>>     * For each MWBP, the Accessibility Benefits of this BP (MWBP
>> mapped to accessibility)
>>     * For each WCAG SC, does this WCAG SC that I have done give also
>> me MWBP compliance? (WCAG mapped to MWBP)
>> 2. Extending/Upgrading from WCAG to MWBP.
>>     * For each WCAG SC, the Mobile Benefits of this WCAG SC (WCAG
>> mapped to MWBP)
>>     * For each MWBP, does this BP that I have done also give me WCAG
>> SC compliance? (MWBP mapped to WCAG)
>> I don't think that this will be as complicated as it seems, and will
>> be easier to read.
>> What worries me is that we've been looking at this for so long and  
>> not
>> noticed what the problem.
>> regards,
>> Alan
>> [1]
> drafts/ED
> -
>> mwbp-wcag-20080305/mwbp-wcag20.html#MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES
>> --
>> Alan Chuter,
>> Senior Web Accessibility Consultant, Technosite (
>> Researcher, Inredis Project (
>> Email:
>> Alternative email:
>> Blogs:

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 09:30:14 UTC