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

Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:28:08 +0100
Message-ID: <48F45818.2040809@mtld.mobi>
To: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: wai-eo-editors@w3.org, public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Yeliz, comments below.


On 13/10/2008 22:01, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> Hi Jo,
> Thanks for your comments.
> On 13 Oct 2008, at 10:13, Jo Rabin wrote:
>> >> Under Focus (tab) order - I think the mobile section sort of 
>> implies that navigation is via tab key, which it isn't, but in any 
>> case it may be worth mentioning that it's hard to navigate with the 
>> common 4-way rocker.
>> >Please let me know what you think about the latest version of the 
>> description, I tried not to talk about any specific technology here.
>> Sorry if this seems a bit picky, or unduly politically correct, but
>> "Mobile Context: Pointing device not present or inadequate."
>> I think that saying "inadequate" opens a number of questions which we 
>> don't want to go into here, so maybe we can just say "There may be no 
>> pointing device"
> I understand your point. What about changing Mobile context to " Device 
> has no mouse, only alphanumeric keypad or joystick so user can use tab 
> navigation to move from one element to another". Do you think this will 
> solve the ambiguity in the definition?

I think the main point is only that the device usually won't have a mouse.

It may have a touch screen, it may just have a 10 key keypad, it might 
have a soft keyboard etc. so fwiw I don't think it is worth elaborating 
on what it may or may not have other than to note that there may not be 
a pointing device.
>> >Changed the description to "Some older mobile browsers do not display 
>> content with invalid markup. Additionally, content adaptation for 
>> mobile device agents is unpredictable and possibly incomplete if the 
>> page markup is invalid."
>> I really think the second sentence (Additionally ...) asks more 
>> questions than it answers so it would be better if it was removed.
> OK, I will remove that.
> Please let me know what you think about the suggested change above so 
> that I can quickly change the document.
> Yeliz.
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 08:28:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC