- From: Lisa Pappas <Lisa.Pappas@sas.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:36:20 -0400
- To: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>, "achuter@technosite.es" <achuter@technosite.es>
Hi, Alan, Some comments on the draft, all at your discretion. I do find the bulleted list easier to parse mentally. Location: Scope, Sentence one Current wording: WCAG and MWBP, and does not replace either of those Suggested revision: WCAG and MWBP, and it does not replace either of those Rationale: clause following the comma needs a subject ("it") to be an independent clause. Reads more clearly than just removing the comma. Location: Scope, Sentence 3 Current wording: information about best Practices for delivering Suggested revision: information about best practices for delivering Lowercase both b and p; not a proper noun Location: Managing, Sentence 2 Current wording: Although W3C provides best practices and guidelines to address such barriers, depending on the user group these barriers are addressed in different documents Suggested revision: Although W3C provides best practices and guidelines to address such barriers, depending on the user group, these barriers are addressed in different documents Rationale: Comma to delineate non-restrictive clause Location: Managing, Sentence 3 Current wording: However, considering overlapping requirements has some benefits which include Suggested revision: However, considering that overlapping requirements have some benefits which include Rationale: Subject verb agreement Location: Managing, Bullet 2 Current wording: Content providers may decide not to adopt another recommendation due to imagined cost. This document explains the overlaps and synergies between the two recommendations, and the ways in which once one recommendation is adopted, the other is less onerous. Suggested revision: Content providers may decide not to adopt another recommendation due to imagined cost. This document explains the overlaps and synergies between the two recommendations and the ways in which, once one recommendation is adopted, adoption of the other is less onerous. Location: Managing, Bullet 3 Current wording: Specialists in the Web accessibility or mobile Web fields may be unaware of the importance of the other and have difficulty communicating. Suggestion/Rationale: Not sure what "the other" means here. Does it mean "the other group" or the other document". I think you mean the other group. If so, then suggested revision is: Specialists in the Web accessibility or mobile Web fields may be unaware of the importance of the other recommendation and have difficulty communicating with each other. Rationale: Unclear referecne Location: Why No Mapping Table, sentence 1 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. Suggested revision: While there appear to be many similarities between the WCAG provisions and those of the MWBP, many subtle differences remain. Rationale: Verb agreement, clarity Location: Current wording: For example, while both WCAG and MWBP require good colour contrast, WCAG emphasises users' color perception while MWBP focuses on the device characteristics (reduced color palette, poor lighting). Suggested revision: For example, while both WCAG and MWBP require good colour contrast, WCAG emphasises users' color perception, while MWBP focuses on the device characteristics (reduced color palette, poor lighting). Rationale: Need comma to offset clause Location: Current wording: This means that complying with WCAG may meet the related MWBP, but not the inverse. Suggested revision: This means that while complying with WCAG may meet the related MWBP, the inverse is not true. Rationale: Clarity of meaning Regards, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Chuter Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:55 AM To: EOWG; MWI BPWG Public Subject: New version of mobile accessibility document Dear EOWG WG and MWBP WG participants, There is a another new editor's draft of this document [1] for your continuing review, dated 1 September 2008. I have updated the changelog with the most important changes [2]. The main changes are a check of consistency between the pages, and checking the WCAG 2.0 success criteria from the CR. best regards, Alan [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080901/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/changelog.html -- Alan Chuter Senior Web Accessibility Consultant, Technosite Researcher, Inredis Project (www.inredis.es) achuter@technosite.es http://www.technosite.es
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 12:37:04 UTC