Re: Completion of mobile accessibility document for review (paragraph on differences of approach)

My apologies for missing last Fridays' EOWG call. I expect to take part 
this week. BPWG people please read especially the paragraph at the end 
of this message ("However, I would disagree with the suggestion").

I have incorporated Shadi's comments into the existing paragraph on 
differences of approach between MWBP and WCAG, which now looks like the 
following:

[start proposed text] WCAG and MWBP both aim to improve the Web 
interaction of users who experience barriers due to either disabilities 
or the device used to access the Web. However, WCAG and MWBP have 
slightly different approaches. For example, a key feature of WCAG is 
testability and the WCAG 2.0 success criteria are specifically designed 
to be testable statements. W3C recommends that all Web sites comply with 
WCAG 2.0. In some situations, Web sites are legally required to be 
accessible. MWBP is different in that it provides suggested best 
practices for consideration. Although some of the best practices are 
testable, they are not all intended to be testable. It is not expected 
that all Web sites will meet MWBP.

While the two documents show significant overlap in many areas, there is 
a continuum in the level of overlap between the individual technical 
requirements, so that there is not always a 1:1 mapping between them. 
For instance, WCAG has some requirements that are specific to 
accessibility needs of people with disabilities, and that are not 
relevant for mobile devices (for example, requirements that specifically 
address assistive technology). Conversely, MWBP has other requirements 
that are specific to mobile devices only (for example, requirements to 
minimize battery consumption and CPU power). However, in general most 
requirements are applicable for both groups of users (for example, 
requirements for color contrast, flexible font sizes, etc.).
[end proposed text]

However, I would disagree with the suggestion:

 > ... "WCAG is intended for all Web sites while
 > MWBP is not intended for all Web sites"

MWBP is intended to help provide a reasonable browsing experience of all 
web sites when using mobile devices. It isn't intended only for 
mobile-specific content. I don't think there is a any difference of 
approach here.

However, while MWBP advocates customising content to take advantage of 
mobile device characteristics (when known), WCAG avoids any suggestion 
of customising content to suit users abilities (or to overcome their 
disabilities).

regards,

Alan



Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Thank you Shawn for getting this started. Unfortunately I will not be 
> able to attend EOWG this week but am happy with what the group decides. 
> This is certainly going in the direction that I was thinking of.
> 
> Please find some additional thoughts:
> 
> 
> Shawn Henry wrote:
>> Here is a proposal to clear the remaining pending action items on the 
>> WCAG-MWBP document:
>>
>> Add the following paragraph under "The Relationship Between WCAG and 
>> MWBP" 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest/#no_correspondence_table> 
>>
>>
>> WCAG and MWBP both aim to improve the Web interaction of users who 
>> experience barriers due to either disabilities or the device used to 
>> access the Web. However, WCAG and MWBP have slightly different 
>> approaches. For example, a key feature of WCAG is testability and the 
>> WCAG 2.0 success criteria are specifically designed to be testable 
>> statements. W3C recommends that all Web sites comply with WCAG 2.0. In 
>> some situations, Web sites are legally required to be accessible. MWBP 
>> is different in that it provides suggested best practices for 
>> consideration. Although some of the best practices are testable, they 
>> are not all intended to be testable. It is not expected that all Web 
>> sites will meet MWBP.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> First, I'd replace "they are not all intended to be testable" with "they 
> are not all designed to be testable" (I don't think it was the explicit 
> intention of the group to not make all the requirements testable).
> 
> More importantly, even if all MWBP were to become testable requirements, 
> there would probably still be some mapping differences between the two 
> documents. I think that one of the things to mention is something like:
> 
> "While the two documents show significant overlap in many areas, there 
> is a continuum in the level of overlap between the individual technical 
> requirements, so that there isn't always a 1:1 mapping between them. For 
> instance, WCAG has some requirements that are specific to accessibility 
> needs of people with disabilities, and that are not relevant for mobile 
> devices [1]. Conversely, MWBP has other requirements that are specific 
> to mobile devices only [2]. However, in general most requirements are 
> applicable for both groups of users [3].".
> 
> [1] Example: requirements that specifically address assistive technology
> [2] Example: requirements to minimize battery consumption and CPU power
> [3] Example: requirements for color contrast, flexible font sizes, etc.
> 
> In other words, I think we shouldn't stress the testability aspect so 
> much as the differentiator but rather highlight the goals more clearly.
> 
> Finally, I like the point "WCAG is intended for all Web sites while MWBP 
> is not intended for all Web sites" very much but couldn't find a way to 
> build into the same paragraph. This points also highlights a fundamental 
> difference between the goals and design principles of the two documents.
> 
> 
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> 
> 
>> *If at all possible, I'd like to discuss this with EOWG this week* 
>> since Alan won't be available next week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ~Shawn
>>
>>
>> Shawn Henry wrote:
>>> Thanks for checking in, Alan.
>>>
>>> I assume the WG would want to review whatever we end up adding to 
>>> cover this issue; however, it will probably be one small paragraph 
>>> and it is likely there will be few or no comments from BPWG 
>>> participants.
>>>
>>> Note that I think Yeliz's paragraph is very good input, but needs 
>>> refining to flow within the context of the document. I look forward 
>>> to Shadi's perspectives... :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ~Shawn
>>>
>>>
>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I would agree. My sincere apologies for not getting to this 
>>>> action item in time. I doubt it would need action by MWBP group.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>   Shadi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alan Chuter wrote:
>>>>> Hi Shawn, Shadi,
>>>>>
>>>>> This Wednesday to Friday the Mobile Web Best Practices WG will be 
>>>>> holding a face to face. One of the agenda items is "Finalise 
>>>>> mobile/accessibility" [1]. This is just a reminder about the (to my 
>>>>> understanding) only two items pending:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. "Explain difference in approach between MWBPs and WCAG, 
>>>>> testability, best practices v. success criteria." Yeliz circulated 
>>>>> a suggestion to us for it on 3 March:
>>>>> "In principle, both WCAG and MWBP aim to improve the Web 
>>>>> interaction of users who experience barriers due to either 
>>>>> disabilities or the device used to access the Web. However, WCAG 
>>>>> and MWBP have slightly different approaches. For instance, even 
>>>>> though WCAG in some countries is a legal requirement, MWBP is not. 
>>>>> Although some best practices are testable in MWBP, testability is a 
>>>>> key feature of the WCAG 2.0 principles. However, despite these 
>>>>> differences, they both focus on user experience."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. "Shadi to summarize different persepctives of WCAG and MWBP" [2].
>>>>>
>>>>> My intention is to say to the MWBP WG that there is nothing further 
>>>>> for them to do for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Meetings/London3/logistics.html
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/15-eo-minutes.html#action05
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Alan Chuter
Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
Consultor
Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
Fundación ONCE
Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
Fax: 91 375 70 51
achuter@technosite.es
http://www.technosite.es

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 11:20:44 UTC