- From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:58:48 +0100
- To: "Bruce Lawson" <brucel@opera.com>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-bpwg" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
:-) I see We are going to fix the major shortcoming of the BP document in the addendum :-) I agree though. The question is, where? We could add this to every test, driving the message home....which I think at this point is necessary or we place into an early opening paragraph where it may easily be overread. -- Kai > -----Original Message----- > From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Lawson > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:31 AM > To: Jo Rabin; Dominique Hazael-Massieux > Cc: public-bpwg > Subject: Re: A few more evaluation procedures for addendum to > BP (ACTION-872) > > > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:17:15 -0000, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote: > > > Oh, and I am wondering if we need an additional optional section: > > > > Variation on mobileOK Basic Tests > > > > e.g. to explain that the 20k limit is for the DDC and that > it is often > > good practice to go beyond this for more advanced devices > > I think this is vital. When I first read the document, I was > aghast at that 20K limit until I ferreted out the context, > but that took a degree of exegesis. Suggest we make that > abundantly clear. (I wrote about it on the web standards project site > http://www.webstandards.org/2008/11/04/wcag-2-and-mobileok-bas ic-tests-specs-are-proposed-recommendations/) > > bruce > Opera > >
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 10:59:41 UTC