W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2008

Thoughts on "Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0"

From: Swan, Henny <Henny.Swan@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:10:07 -0000
Message-ID: <7DCC97516CAEE343BD17A00F900754E10DE5E2C9@jstmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

"Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0  to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

1. Section "Introduction"
The text "It describes how different Mobile Web Best Practices..."
should be changed to "This document describes how different Mobile Web
Best Practices...".

2. General
In the document sometimes references are made to "BPs" and sometimes to
"Mobile Web BPS" (see para 3 under introduction for an example). Is this
intentional, i.e. There is a distinction between the two? If not it may
be worth making all references the same.

3. Section "Introduction"
"By improving usability, all BPs help improve accessibility. This
section describes the specific accessibility benefits and the ways in
which some relate directly to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

I'm finding these two sentences tricky to read. Not sure what they are
saying. For example what section is meant by "this section", the

3. Section "Introduction"
Second bullet in the list "Does the BP cover any WCAG CPs?" "CPs" is a
new concept here, I think it would be better to say "checkpoints"

4. Section "Extending from MWBP to WCAG 2.0"
In this section there are lists of WCAG 2.9 checkpoints that are linked.
I expected to click on these and get an explanation of the bullets under
the Introduction that explain what is included in the BP explanations 

(i.e.     *  How does it help especially users with disabilities?
(otherwise no_added_benefit)
    * Does the BP cover any WCAG CPs? If so
          o Additional effort required for WCAG compliance
          o How to leverage existing investment in BP.
          o If so, is BP adequate for WCAG?
          o Is BP correct?
          o Synergy/overlap and differences.
          o If you comply with MWBP, why not go a little further and...?
          o If you comply with MWBP, and are aiming for WCAG, you will
have to...
          o How to do both at once.")

I became confused when it clicked through to WCAG 2.0 and not to further
explanation. It may be useful to add a sentence that says "Listed below
are WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria linked through the relevant section on in
the WCAG 2.0 document..." or something.

5. 	Section "Extending from MWBP to WCAG 2.0"
The headings "Nothing", "Something" and "Everything" are all linked to
broken links.

6. Section "How does it help especially users with disabilities?"
The following sentence reads a bit strangely "This paragraph focuses on
the added benefits for their special needs of users with different
disabilities". Also not sure about the reference to "special needs".
Perhaps this could be tweaked along the following lines "This paragraph
focuses on the added benefits for people with disabilities".

Again it is initially confusing as to what "this paragraph" refers to.
I'm wondering if maybe numbers before the H2 headings may help people
orientate. Part of my thinking for this is that there is a huge amount
of content to read through before you get to the actual "Individual
Mobile Web Best Practices Compared" to the extent that the reader may
think that the introductory sections are it.

Henny Swan
Senior Web Accessibility Consultant
RNIB Web Access Consultancy
T: 020 7391 2044
M: 07940 718434
E: Henny.Swan@rnib.org.uk
A: 105 Judd Street, London, WC1H 9NE
W: http://www.rnib.org.uk/wac

Need to know more about web accessibility? Then why not enrol on one of
our training courses at http://www.rnib.org.uk/webaccesstraining.

Also keep up to date with news in the world of accessibility in our blog
at http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog 


NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk

This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 13:14:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:42 UTC