Re: Discussion on purpose of Mobile Accessibility document

Alan Chuter wrote:
> For those who were not on the call: It became apparent that something
> was very wrong with this page of the document [1]. There was no
> agreement on whether it was for going from MWBP to WCAG or the
> reverse.
> Following our discussion, and having stood back from the document for
> a while I realised what I believe is the problem is that the documents
> are structured around the mapping, not around what people are going to
> use it for. For each BP there are two paragraphs:
> 1. How does it especially help users with disabilities?
> 2. Does it help meet any WCAG 2.0 success criteria?
> While these appear to be slightly different takes on the same thing, I
> think that they are quite different
> 1. Is about the accessibility benefits of MWBP and the case for
> adopting from MWBP starting from WCAG  (I've done WCAG, what is the
> accessibility justification for adopting some or all of MWBP?). From
> 2. Is about the work involved in adopting WCAG starting from MWBP
> (I've done MWBP, how much further do I have to go to comply with
> WCAG?) From WCAG to MWBP.
> So while the *mapping* is from MWBP to WCAG, the *use of the document*
> goes both ways. These two things should not be in the same document, I
> think.
> So at the cost of expanding from five pages to seven, and turning it
> inside out, I suggest splitting this up, so that we have:
> 1. Extending/Upgrading from WCAG to MWBP.
>     * For each MWBP, the Accessibility Benefits of this BP (MWBP
> mapped to accessibility)
>     * For each WCAG SC, does this WCAG SC that I have done give also
> me MWBP compliance? (WCAG mapped to MWBP)
> 2. Extending/Upgrading from WCAG to MWBP.
>     * For each WCAG SC, the Mobile Benefits of this WCAG SC (WCAG
> mapped to MWBP)
>     * For each MWBP, does this BP that I have done also give me WCAG
> SC compliance? (MWBP mapped to WCAG)
> I don't think that this will be as complicated as it seems, and will
> be easier to read.

Brilliant Alan, I think that would solve the problem beautifully.

> What worries me is that we've been looking at this for so long and not
> noticed what the problem.

Wood, trees. Nicely caught though.

Liam McGee, Managing Director, Communis Ltd      +44 (0)1373 836 476

Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 18:24:28 UTC