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 firstname.lastname@example.org (archive).
This page is part of a suite of related documents. Please refer to the “How to Use These Documents” section for more information.
As described in this document, the two recommendations are complementary. The motivation for adopting them may be different (for example, commercial, regulatory, altruistic). It has been described elsewhere that retrofitting existing websites for compliance with another set of non-functional requirements is much more costly than complying during the design and development phases. The cost of late implementation (content repair, staff training, redesigning workflow) separately may also be much greater than doing both together, due to the synergies between them. (So we suggest that for many projects there are compleing reasons to do both at the same time...)
When reading the following section it is important to understand that WCAG 2.0 success criteria (SCs) are assigned priorities. Depending on the priority chosen, some may not be required for a given project.
This document looks at ways in which some of the Mobile Web BPs and WCAG SCs can be profitably addressed together, and [@@if there are any] cases where there is conflict.
These requirements can be addressed together, saving time and effort and possibly improving implementation. @@ These could be folded up into a short list.
Are overlapping. Note: However, it is important to taken into account that unlike the MWBP, the accessibility guidelines specify the ways that color may be used. Comment: Should the preceding sentence be here, or should there be a detail section about this SC? Or should the proviso be dropped? Or should it be moved to the “Something” list? At present it's parked here.
Tip: Although the BP has a generic title covering all structural elements, it only mentions section headings. Using other commonly-accepted structural elements not mentioned in the BP can improve usability for mobile users as well as accessibility, and give go some way toward compliance with WCAG success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. These elements include lists, quotations and citations, table markup, and semantic aspects like emphasis.
This is a difficult problem. For example, consider 1.3.1 Info and Relationships in the MWBP-helps-with-WCAG page and for example STRUCTURE in the WCAG-helps-with-MWBP page. These are both one to many relationships. How can these be broght together in a way that will be useful to implementers? One way is the following:
A common features approach: One solution may be to look at WCAG 2.0 at the techniques level for XHTML Basic, CSS and script, and look at how to cover MWBP and WCAG 2.0 together for each aspect. As WCAG has different levels the first question asked will generally be about the WCAG level rather than about MWBP. You have to meet the most stringent requirement at each level (in these examples it is from WCAG but that will not always be the case). For example:
|2.4.6 Headings and Labels||STRUCTURE as applies to using section headings|
For WCAG level AAA, [you have to] use section headings as described in WCAG SC 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (AA). This goes some way to meeting 2.4.10 Section Headings (AAA) and this also goes some way to meeting MWBP STRUCTURE.
|2.4.6 Headings and Labels (AA) and 2.4.10 Section Headings||STRUCTURE as applies to using section headings|
For WCAG level A [you have to] ensure that color is not the only way to convey information as described in WCAG SC 1.4.1 Use of Color. Using structural elements to achieve this also goes some way to meeting MWBP STRUCTURE.
|1.4.1 Use of Color||STRUCTURE as applies to use of color.|