Comments on MWBP-WCAG Relationship documents

At 09:26 PM 12/13/2007, Shawn Henry wrote:
>2. MWBP-WCAG Relationship documents
>Questions for discussion:
>a. Overall how does document this work? Does it get across the right 
>message? How is the tone?

Generally quite good in length and tone,  but occasionally muddled 
and in need of clearer language:

P1:  consider changing "mobile phone penetration" (sounds like a 
battle plan or..) to dissemination, diffusion, saturation...or even use?
Consider changing "... making a Web site accessible to people with 
disabilities is becoming an expected aspect of the Web development 
process. " to "using accessible design technique is becoming an 
integral part of the standard professional Web development process."

P2:  Suggested phrasing:  "Many people are unaware that there is 
significant overlap between successful design for mobile phone users 
and accessible design technique."

P3:  Suggest making the Web site neutral instead of "your"

>b. How is the general content? Should something be added or cut out?

Good

>c. How are the section breaks and headings?

Good

>d. What about breaking up the technical document into the sections 
>bulleted at the end? What about the headings for those sections?
>Some specifics:
>e. What about using "mobile phones" which is more colloquial usage, 
>verses "mobile devices" which is more broad?

mobile devices seems more appropriate and accurate

>f. What are the issues with saying "accessible to mobile devices" - 
>which might confuse the definition of "accessibility to people with 
>disability", but also might serve to unite the different perspectives.

I agree that it might be a bit confusing to a reader unfamiliar with 
the issues.  On the other hand, the very fact that design choices 
create barriers to successful use by those who browse with mobile 
devices could be a strengthening of the advocacy position.  "Good 
design IS accessible design," as John Slatin says.

>g. What are the pros and cons of saying "usable with mobile phones"?

The usability word opens another can of worms entirely and should be 
avoided when possible in my opinion.

>h. What about the different ideas for wording that are in [brackets]?

Some bracketed text is addressed above.  Others are:

[There may also be the situation where a person with a disability is 
using a mobile phone to access the Web. | Those developing sites 
designed for mobile phones should also design the site so that people 
with disabilities can use it with their mobile phone and any 
assistive technology they may be using.]

Suggested:  People with disabilities use mobile phones too and may be 
browsing with both a cell phone and assistive technology.

[Another situation might be that if a Web site is already in 
compliance with WCAG or MWBP, it may be well on its way to 
corresponding to its counterpart. | Web sites that already meet WCAG 
or MWBP, are already well the way to meeting the other.]

Suggested:  Because of the overlap of requirements for both 
successful mobile browsing and accessibility, there is likely to be a 
reciprocal relationship on compliance - sites that conform to WCAG 
are likely to be near compliance for MWBP and vice versa.

>Finally:
>i. Any objections to publishing a draft version?

with a bit more refining, no objection.

Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 21:32:57 UTC