Re: Mobile Web BP Accessibility document, Why no correspondence table?

Thanks for your input on this David. I agree that some simple tables
like these at first seem easier to read. Reading the document one
thinks "There must be a simpler way to do this." Unfortunately a
simple table simplifies by ignoring the most important and useful
information. What is needed for such a table (as you rightly
acknowledge "This table doesn't quite work in its current form as it
is slightly misleading") is that another column is necessary to
explain the nature of the relationship is in each case. Unfortunately
when you add this information (and remove the table format), you get
the document as it stands at the moment.

However, in section 4, "Does it give me WCAG compliance?" there is a
list: "To summarise, for WCAG 1.0, compliance with MWBP ensures that
content already complies with checkpoints... with no further effort,
while ... simply do not apply. With some extra effort or simply
considering different user needs, it is quite feasible to also comply
with ..." which is an accurate summary (although it's out of date).
Although it perhaps isn't made clear, with that information a
developer can happily say "So I already complied with all these
checkpoints without knowing it; maybe now I'll go a little further and
aim for the others, too."

Maybe we can discuss this on the call tomorrow.

regards,

Alan



On 28/11/2007, David Rooks <drooks@segala.com> wrote:
> I agree with Miguel on this and resubmit the tables i previously sent to the
> mailing list... It still needs some work still but i think its a good
> start...
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 1:36 PM, Alan Chuter < achuter@technosite.es> wrote:
> >
> > On 28/11/2007, Miguel Garcia < miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org > wrote:
> > > ...Also I miss a summaryze table
> > > between WCAG and MWBP relationship. This relationship go unnoticed in
> > > the chapter among all the text. I'm thinking about making a quick
> > > reference guide about how to accesibilize a mobile page. I'll send an
> > > example later.
> >
> > The problem is that there is no easily described relationship between
> > the two. Other people have tried to produce tables like this, and the
> > MWBP document includes "related to" references but while these are
> > useful as shortcuts, they can often be misleading as they don't
> > describe what the relationship is.
> >
> > Perhaps the introduction should make this clear, with a section "Why
> > not a WCAG to MWBP correspondence table?". If you think that's a good
> > idea, I'll include this in the next draft.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > --
> > Email: achuter@technosite.es
> > Blogs
> > http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Blogs
http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 16:14:40 UTC