Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"

Hi Yeliz

Thanks for this. Looks fine to me, a couple of additional comments:

 >> Under Focus (tab) order - I think the mobile section sort of implies 
that navigation is via tab key, which it isn't, but in any case it may 
be worth mentioning that it's hard to navigate with the common 4-way rocker.

 >Please let me know what you think about the latest version of the 
description, I tried not to talk about any specific technology here.

Sorry if this seems a bit picky, or unduly politically correct, but

"Mobile Context: Pointing device not present or inadequate."

I think that saying "inadequate" opens a number of questions which we 
don't want to go into here, so maybe we can just say "There may be no 
pointing device"


 >Changed the description to "Some older mobile browsers do not display 
content with invalid markup. Additionally, content adaptation for mobile 
device agents is unpredictable and possibly incomplete if the page 
markup is invalid."

I really think the second sentence (Additionally ...) asks more 
questions than it answers so it would be better if it was removed.



On 02/10/2008 14:20, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> Hi Jo,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all of your comments in the 
> latest version (<http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new> and 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new-format>). Please let me 
> know if you are happy with the changes.
> 
> On 10 Sep 2008, at 10:09, Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
>> I think that it might be worth making the descriptive text that 
>> follows the title more consistent. Sometimes it says "the user" 
>> sometimes "user" sometimes "user" is implied and sometimes it is a 
>> staccato list of problems e.g. "Information loss. Content inoperable"
> 
> I have changed them all so that they are presented in a consistent style.
> 
>> Would it be better if "Large page or large images" read "Large pages 
>> and large images"?
> 
> I changed it to "Large pages or large images".
> 
>> In the same section Users / get or User / gets ?
> 
> Changed it to "user gets".
> 
>>
>> In the section "Information conveyed only using CSS" is it worth 
>> mentioning that CSS can contain content as well as formatting - e.g. 
>> background image and "before" and "after" text?
> 
> Changed the description to "User is unable to access information encoded 
> in visual formatting or in CSS"
> 
>>
>> On "Missing or inappropriate page title" - - the title is often not 
>> displayed at all in mobile browsers. So the significance is probably 
>> that bookmark lists don't make much sense.
> 
> Not sure about this one. Is this a problem with mobile browsers? or with 
> the content? To me, it sounds like this is a problem because of mobile 
> browsers because they don't display some information about the page.
> 
>>
>> Under Focus (tab) order - I think the mobile section sort of implies 
>> that navigation is via tab key, which it isn't, but in any case it may 
>> be worth mentioning that it's hard to navigate with the common 4-way 
>> rocker.
> 
> Please let me know what you think about the latest version of the 
> description, I tried not to talk about any specific technology here.
> 
>>
>> At Long words etc. - I think it may be worth mentioning that the users 
>> context often means that they want rapid access to unambiguous 
>> information - i.e. it's not just that they are distracted and have 
>> partial attention on the content.
> 
> I tried to talk about the problems and tried to avoid generalising what 
> users might want :(
> 
>>
>> Invalid or unsupported markup - some older devices don't display 
>> invalid markup at all. I don't think that content adaptation is the 
>> main point here, and should probably be removed.
> 
> Changed the description to "Some older mobile browsers do not display 
> content with invalid markup. Additionally, content adaptation for mobile 
> device agents is unpredictable and possibly incomplete if the page 
> markup is invalid."
> 
> Regards,
> Yeliz.
>

Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 13:14:32 UTC