Comments on EOWG: Mobile-Accessibility Overlap document publication

EOWG & document editors & others,

I reviewed the overview page in detail and skimmed the other pages. I have the following comments (which wouldn't fit in the survey).

*I strongly recommend the following changes before this publication:*

location: navigation at the top of pages, sub-page headings, and throughout
current wording: “MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 1.0”, “From MWBP 1.0 to WCAG 1.0: Making content that meets Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 also meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0”, etc.
suggested revision: Take “1.0” off of “MWMP 1.0” in all instances.
rationale: It is extremely hard to “parse” all the 1.0s and 2.0s in this version. Since this document applies only to MWBP 1.0, take “1.0” out of all places where the acronym is used. OK to leave “1.0” where “Mobile Web Best Practice” is written out in text (but best not in the headings if not absolutely necessary).

location: overview page, Status section
current wording: none
suggested revision: a paragraph briefly saying what changed since the last version, probably linking to the changelog, and specifically saying what we seek comments on in this version.
rationale: requested by EOWG (and maybe W3C-wide practice) http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action03

location: overview page, Status section
current wording: “If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (with public archive) or wai-eo-editors@w3.org (with public archive). All feedback is welcome.”
suggested revision: put this in it’s own paragraph. “Please send comments on this document to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (with public archive). All feedback is welcome.”
rationale: too much of a burden to have 2 mailing lists. revised wording to be more inviting and direct.

location: overview, Appendix B: Glossary
current wording: “Appendix B: Glossary”
suggested revision: “Special Terms”
rationale: glossaries in W3C technical documents have a certain weight of importance, that these should not.

location: each subpage
current wording: “Incomplete draft: This document is an editor's copy that has no official standing and is incomplete. Particularly, the section WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together is only an outline; WCAG 1.0 to MWBP is only partly filled out. It is subject to major changes and is therefore not intended for implementation. It is provided for review and feedback only. Please send feedback to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (archive).”
suggested revision: “Incomplete draft: This document is an in-progress Working Draft provided for review and feedback. It is incomplete and will likely have major changes. See also <a href>Status of this Document</a> in the overview page.<br />Please send feedback to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (archive).”
rationale: relevant to each page. simpler.

location: throughout
current wording: WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 Together page
suggested revision: I understood that EOWG decided at the 20 June teleconference to take this page out for now. In order to keep the scope down and get the first version of the document completed sooner, EOWG suggested doing the Together page in a second revision. They suggested putting a placeholder paragraph in the overview document that says we might provide detailed information later, and for now if you are looking at both WCAG 2.0 & MWBP fresh, it’s probably best to start with WCAG 2.0 first and then use the "from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0" page, and also to point to the experiences document [http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences] that shows some of the overlaps. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action12]
rationale: simplifies the nav and lists/table of subpages, and avoids sending them to a page that is essentially empty of content.

-----
*I suggest the following for this publication, but they are not required:*

location: overview page, “How to Use This Document” section
current wording: “This technical report consists of a number of pages describing the relationship between WCAG and MWBP. If you are interested in complying with both WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 together, then refer to WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 Together. If you have already complied with one of these recommendations, then depending on which one, continue with the following documents (@@note list and table provided in parallel until WGs decide which is easiest to understand):”
suggested revision: “This technical report includes 4 subpages that describe the relationship between each version of WCAG and MWBP 1.0. Each page covers a different scenario based on which document you are starting from, as listed [in the table] below.
<br><span class=”@@”>REVIEW NOTE: Do you find the bulleted list or the table easier to understand?</span>”
rationale: simpler explanation of the document, clearer indication of the open issue

location: overview page, “Managing Overlapping Requirements” section
current wording: whole section
suggested revision: move this to http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/
rationale: agreed to by EOWG: “ACTION: Alan: move the business case type information to the other document (EO introduction) and here leave only the technical information” - http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action15

location: overview page, Differences Between WCAG and MWBP section
current wording: “Differences Between WCAG and MWBP
Unlike the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the Mobile Web Best Practices are not prioritised or assigned levels. MWBP relates to checkpoints of all the WCAG 1.0 priorities (1, 2 and 3) and to all the WCAG 2.0 level A, AA and AAA success criteria.”
suggested revision: “Priorities and Levels
The WCAG 1.0 checkpoints (CP) are assigned Priority 1, 2, 3. WCAG 2.0 success criteria (SC) are assigned Level A, AA, AAA. The Mobile Web Best Practices (BP) are not assigned levels.”
(and change WCAG 1.0 link from http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#priorities to http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#priorities)
rationale: clearer

location: overview, appendix A: References
current wording: [WCAG2.0]
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid and G. Vanderheiden, May 2007 (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/)
suggested revision: update to current version consider not putting a date and using the link http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20 so that it always goes to the current version 

location: subpages
current wording: “Note on inconsistent links: Links in the “something” and “nothing” sections point to within this page. Links in the “everything” section point to the Recommendation.”
suggested revision: add <span class=”@@”>REVIEW NOTE: Is this too confusing? Suggestions for better ways to do it?</span>”

location: all subpages
current wording:
“Nothing: content already complies with these BPs:”
“Something: more effort of some kind or a check, to comply with these BPs:”
“Everything: start from scratch to comply with these BPs:”
suggested revision:
“Nothing: content that already meets WCAG 1.0 should already meet these BPs:”
“Something: more effort of some kind or a check is need, to comply with these BPs:”
“Everything: these BPs are not related to WCAG 1.0 checkpoints:”
rationale: clearer

-------
*Please consider these for the next version (or the easy and non-controversial ones for this version):*

priority: requested for next version
location: Overview, Scope section
current wording: “This technical report is created as a supporting document to WCAG and MWBP, and does not replace either of those. For further and comprehensive information about how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities, please refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Similarly, for further and comprehensive information about best Practices for delivering Web content to mobile devices, please refer to the Mobile Web Best Practices.”
suggested revision: “This technical report is a companion document to WCAG and MWBP, and does not replace either of those. The actual Web Content Accessibility Guidelines document should be used to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities, and the Mobile Web Best Practices document should be used for best practices for making Web content for mobile devices.”
rationale: more direct

priority: requested for next version
location: overview page, “How to Use This Document” section
current wording: table formatting, column headers are centered
suggested revision: left align column headers
rationale: easier to read since data is left aligned

priority: requested for next version
location: overview, “Why No Mapping Table?” section
current wording: “While there appears to be many similarities between many of the WCAG provisions and those of the MWBPs, there are still many subtle differences. … but not the inverse.”
suggested revision: “While there are many similarities between the WCAG provisions and the MWBP provisions, there are still many subtle differences. … but not the inverse. Thus, there is not a simple mapping table between WCAG and MWBP. The <a href>Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices</a> document shows generally how WCAG and MWBP relate. ”
rationale: simpler. points to closet thing we have (experiences doc)

priority: required for next version
location: overview doc, Appendix B: Glossary
suggested revision: move this back to the main part of the document (instead of an appendix) and edit to be more relevant across all subpages, and to have consistent wording., e.g: consider putting “Concerning the effort required to meet a checkpoint or best practice,” at the top rather than starting some of the definitions with is; where you have “checkpoint or best practice” add SC: “ checkpoint, success criteria, or best practice”… 

priority: low, editor's discretion
location: overview page, “How to Use This Document” section
current wording: “considering progressing to”
suggested revision: “want to learn about”
rationale: more broad

priority: low, editor's discretion
location: overview page, abstract
current wording: “This technical report describes the relationships, overlaps and differences between... Introductory information can be found in Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web…”
suggested revision: “This technical report describes the overlaps and differences between… An introduced and links to related documents are in Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web…”
rationale: more simple, direct wording

priority: requested for next version
location: subpages
suggested revision: make the intro text the same

priority: requested for next version
location: subpages
current wording: “If your content already meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, this page describes what needs to be done to meet all the Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP).”
suggested revision: “For those familiar with <a href>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0</a>, this page describes what also needs to be done to meet <a href>Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) 1.0</a>.”
rationale: the audience is broader than those whose content already meets WCAG

priority: requested for next version
location: subpages
current wording: “simplicity with keywords (nothing, something, everything)”
suggested revision: link to the “definitions” in the overview page

priority: requested for next version
location: subpages
suggested revision: re-consider the order that the information is presented, e.g., alphabetical or as it is in the MWBP, etc. If not alphabetical or numerical, note in the document how it is ordered.

priority: requested for next version
location: subpages
current wording: “This section deals with each of the best practices which WCAG 1.0 helps with meeting.”
suggested revision: “This section lists each of the Mobile Web best practices that related to WCAG 1.0, which are listed under “Nothing” and “”Something” above.

priority: requested for next version
location: subpages
current wording: “As described in this section, many Mobile Web BPs have the added benefit of partial or complete compliance with certain WCAG success criteria. However, the accessibility guidelines are often more detailed or describe a different aspect of the same concept. It should not be assumed that following any BP will ensure accessibility. To ensure accessibility it is important to always consult the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.”
suggested revision: consider having this idea only in the overview document and not repeating it on  every subpage.

###

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 01:17:11 UTC