Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group (BPWG)
Changelog for document “Relationship Between
Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines”
The W3C Working Group Note is at http://www.w3.org/TR/mwbp-wcag/.
Comments from Shawn, 23 June 2009
DONE (24/06/2009): Remove Audience section.
DONE (24/06/2009): In the Appendix A: References, please change the URI http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/" to "http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/"
DONE (23/06/2009): In the Appendix A: References, please change "Lawton Henry, S." to "Henry, S.L." for both [WAI/Experiences] and [WAI/Mobile]
DONE (23/06/2009): In the Appendix A: References, make the formatting of the reference consistent, e.g., you have the date in [MWBP1.0] but not in the others, and for the first two the title is linked but the bottom three they aren't and instead the URI is in parenthesis afterwards. Editor's comment: Drop the dates.
DONE (23/06/2009): The "Document Information" footer is from the WAI Resource template (that is, non-TR web pages on the WAI subsite). I don't think we need any of that in the final version. (See other Notes.)
DONE (24/06/2009): Remember "This document (will be in final version) also available as a [single HTML file]."
Comments from EOWG, 22 May 2009
DONE (25/05/09): In "The Experiences Shared by People with Disabilities and by People Using Mobile Devices document shows generally how WCAG and MWBP relate." use new document title (and search throughout to see if needs updating elsewhere) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/22-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Comments from Andi Snow-Weaver, 19 May 2009
On behalf of WCAG WG (but not reviewed by WG).
DONE 21/05/2009: There are two links to Shared experiences (http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences.html) but then a link to a "table of barriers common ..." (http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new-format). The latter page links to another page which looks like a replacement to the shared experiences page? I only reviewed the experiences-new-table. Note from Shawn: Alan, please change: "Use the table of barriers common to mobile device users and people with disabilities for an overview of the barriers and solutions shared by WCAG 2.0 and MWBP."
TO: "Use Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities (which is also available in a table format) for an overview of the barriers and solutions shared by WCAG 2.0 and MWBP.
- DONE 21/05/2009: STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT bullet - I don't agree that this is covered by 1.3.1. The MWBP requires that the page be usable with style sheets disabled. In WCAG 2.0, you can rely on style sheets if you consider it to be an accessibility supported Web technology. It is possible to have all of the information and structure be programmatically determined but the page would not be usable without the style sheets. ARIA is one technology that depends heavily on style sheets and ARIA sites will not be usable (by sighted users) with the style sheets disabled. Editor's note: Moved to something list, and incorporated the comment in edited form.
- DONE 21/05/2009: STYLE_SHEETS_USE bullet - WCAG 2.0 allows, but does not encourage, layout tables as long as they meet all of the other criteria. If the MWBP requires the use of style sheets and not layout tables, then 1.3.1 would not meet the MWBP criteria and more would be required. Editor's note: Moved to something list, and incorporated the comment in edited form.
- RESOLVED 21/05/2009: COLOR_CONTRAST link doesn't work - I think this should go in the "Nothing" list. If you meet the WCAG 2.0 measurable criteria, that should be good enough to meet the subjective MWBP criteria too. Editor's note: Corrected the link. Explain that WCAG SC may not cover the BP completely because of the exceptions it allows (large text, incidental text or images of text and logotypes).
- DONE 21/05/2009: CONTROL_LABELLING - I think that if you do the labeling portion of 3.3.2 AND EITHER 1.3.1 OR 4.1.2, then you meet the MWBP and there would be nothing else to do. Editor's note: Added that each alone is not sufficient.
- DONE 21/05/2009: CONTROL_POSITIONING - I think this should say " 1.3.1 ... at level A if the label element is used. The advisory (optional) technique (“Positioning labels to maximize predictability of relationships”) is also required.
- RESOLVED 21/05/09: NON_TEXT_ALTERNATIVES - confused as to why this is in both the Nothing and the Something list. Editor's note: Whether there is more to do or not depends on the SC that covers it, and at which level. If you've done SC 1.1.1 "Non-text Content" there's nothing more to do, but if you only do 1.2.7 Full Text Alternative then it's only partly covered (but at level AAA you would already have done 1.1.1 anyway).
- DONE 21/05/2009: OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT - I don't think the Keyboard SC help with this. It may be a script that is managing the keyboard operation. Editor's note: Deleted this section and moved OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT to the Everything list.
I only briefly scanned this document but didn't see any glaring problems.
From EOWG Call of 24 April 2009
Also in meeting minutes for 24/04/2009.
- Under "The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP," move the first paraghaph to after the third. Change the <h2> from "The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP" to something like the "The Different Approaches of WCAG or MWBP" (or maybe "Similaries and Differences between WCAG or MWBP" or "Mapping between WCAG and MWBP") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-eo-minutes.html#action01]
- DONE 28/04/2009: Heading "Different Approaches Between WCAG and MWBP"
- DONE 28/04/2009: Change "the inverse is not true" to "the inverse is not always true"
Comments received April 2009
- DONE: 23/04/2009. From Gregg Vanderheiden. Mainly about the descriptions about "something" and "nothing" descriptions.
- DONE: 23/04/2009. From Yeliz, Shawn, Shadi. Description of different approaches.
From EOWG Call 13/02/2009
Comments from Lisa Pappas, 28/10/2008
Editorial tweaks in "Relationship between MWBP and WCAG" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2008Oct/0008.html. All these have been done.
- DONE: Location: Introduction, 3rd sentence. Rationale: It is primarily designed to help Web developers who have worked with either WCAG or MWBP to learn about the additional requirements in the other. Suggested: It is designed primarily to help Web developers who have worked with either WCAG or MWBP to learn about the additional requirements in the other. Rationale: Don't separate the compound predicate ("is designed"). Clarity and could affect translation.
- DONE: Location: "The Relationship Between" - Para. 1, Sent. 2. Rationale: For example, in some cases complying a specific WCAG provision will meet the related MWBP; Suggestion: For example, in some cases complying with a specific WCAG provision will meet the related MWBP; Rationale: Need "with" -- missing word.
- DONE: Location: "How to Use," Paragraph 1, second bullet. Rationale: Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities lists Web interaction that is similar by a user with a disability and by a user with a mobile device. Suggestion: Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities lists similarities of Web interactions by a user with a disability and by a user with a mobile device. Rationale: Current is missing a word. Rewording for clarity
- DONE: Location: "How to Use," Paragraph 1, second bullet. Rationale: It links to recommendations for designing Web content without these barriers from WCAG and MWBP. Suggestion: It links to recommendations from WCAG and MWBP for designing Web content without these barriers. Rationale: Sounds like the barriers come FROM WCAG and MWBP, so need to move the modifier
- DONE: Location: "How to Use," Paragraph 2, third bullet. Rationale: If you are familiar with WCAG 2.0, and want to learn... Suggestion: If you are familiar with WCAG 2.0 and want to learn... Rationale: Remove comma. Needs to be parallel (it's correct in previous bullet)
- DONE: Location: "Web Content..Together" - para. 1. Rationale: If you are not familiar with either WCAG or MWBP, a strategy is to: Suggestion: If you are not familiar with either WCAG or MWBP: Rationale: Phrase "a strategy is to" is superfluous. Note: This one may be eclipsed by an alternative introductory phrase that came up in EOWG. Think that's what I heard from Shawn as I was typing this.
- DONE: Location: "Web Content..Together" - list item 1. Rationale: Use the table of barriers common to mobile device users and people with disabilities for an overview of the barriers and solutions common to WCAG 2.0 and MWBP. Suggestion: Use the table of barriers common to mobile device users and people with disabilities for an overview of the barriers and solutions shared by WCAG 2.0 and MWBP. Rationale:"common" is repeated. Might be clearer to replace with synonym
- DONE: Location: Appendix A, para 1. Rationale: For the latest version of any W3C specification please ... Suggestion: For the latest version of any W3C specification, please consult ... Rationale: Need comma after adverbial introductory clause to set off main clause (yes, grammar granny ).
- DONE: Location: Document Information, copyright statement. Rationale: (MIT, ERCIM,Keio)S. uggestion: (MIT, ERCIM, Keio) Rationale: I'm sure this comes from some automated place, but we need a space after the comma between ERCIM and Keio)
From 19/09/2008 EOWG Call
Comments by Shawn 01/07/2008
Recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JulSep/0002.html.
I strongly recommend the following changes before this publication. Editor's comment: these all done now.
- DONE 02/07/2008: 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.
- DONE 02/07/2008: 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 firstname.lastname@example.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 Status of this Document in the overview page.
Please send feedback to email@example.com (archive).” Rationale: relevant to each page. simpler.
- SUPERSEDED before 10/02/2009: 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. Editor's comment: this section has been removed.
- DONE 02/07/2008: Location: overview page, Status section. Current wording: “If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org (with public archive) or email@example.com (with public archive). All feedback is welcome.” Suggested revision: put this in it’s own paragraph. “Please send comments on this document to firstname.lastname@example.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.
- DONE 02/07/2008: 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
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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).
I suggest the following for this publication, but they are not required:
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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. Editor's comment: Part of this was already done.
- SUPERSEDED: 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>”. Editor's comment: This is now covered by text in each section (“Everything”, “something”, etc with “Links in this section point to...”)
- DONE: 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
- DONE 24/06/2008: 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. Editor's note: wording has since changed slightly.
- DONE 02/10/2008: 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
- DONE: 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. Editor's comment: This was changed but the wording about the open issue subsequently removed as the table was removed.
Please consider these for the next version (or the easy and non-controversial ones for this version):
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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.
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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.
- DONE: 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.
- SUPERSEDED: 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. Editor's note: Definitions have been moved to the subpages.
- DONE 10/02/2009: Priority: requested for next version. Location: subpages. Suggested revision: make the intro text the same. Editor's note: With following.
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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
- SUPERSEDED: 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. Editor's note: this text seems to have been removed.
- SUPERSEDED: 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”… Editor's note: Glossary since removed.
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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
- SUPERSEDED: 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. Editor's note: table now removed.
- DONE 10/02/2009: 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)
From 26/06/2008 BPWG call
- DONE 18/02/2009: Include audience section but not for next draft. Was last included in http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080606/. Comment: This had previously been rejected by EOWG.
- SUPERSEDED: Section heading try "Benefitting from..."
- DONE 27/06/2008: Short handles in how-to-use table and list.
- DONE 27/06/2008: Explain why there's a table and a list.
- Section heading try "Structural differences..." (was priorities).
- DONE 27/06/2008: Put back relationship word (not "synergies").
- DONE 27/06/2008: Include "Overview" in heading.
- DONE: Remove [contents] link from navigation.
- DONE 20/01/2009: Links to WCAG or BPs and intra-page links should be differentiated.
- DONE Take out "Refer to links".
- DONE before 10/02/2009: In the "Summary of work" section, some SC links include a comma, some don't. I don't think there should be any comma here.
- DONE before 10/02/2009: Include "Section Headings" in the 2.4.10 link.
- DONE before 10/02/2009: Some "possibly", "partially" link to the definition of these terms in the overview page. Some don't. I'd remove all the links here (and maybe add a reminder at the top of the section?)
From EOWG call on 13/06/2008
From 15/02/2008 EOWG Call
See minutes at http://www.w3.org/2008/02/15-eo-minutes.
Comments from Yeliz Yesilada, 20/02/2008
- DONE 13/02/2009: Top Menu: In the top menu, again MWBP does not have a version, would it be better to have the version number for consistency and for the future developments? Comment: further discussion needed. No new version of MWBP is expected (WG has now moved on to MWABP). DEcided to leave as is.
- SUPERSEDED: Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?: It would be good to give an example why the relationships are not symmetrical. Otherwise it is not clear. Editor's comment: Text is clearer now, no neeed for example.
- DONE before 10/02/2009: Abstract: Would it be useful to add links to WCAG and MWBP?
- DONE before 10/02/2009: Abstract: Only WCAG has the acronym but not MWBP.
- DONE before 10/02/2009: Related Documents of Interest: What about adding this page (http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/) to the
- SUPERSEDED: Page title: It would be good to remove the versioning of the MWBP from the main title. This is because of the following reasons: (1) WCAG does not have a version and for consistency it would be better not to have it
for MWBP; (2) and the new version of MWB is under development so I would imagine when the new version will be available, there will be another document comparing the new version of the MWBP with the existing WCAG guidelines. Comment: this seems to have been resolved in subsequent edits.
- SUPERSEDED before 10/02/2009: How to use this document section: There is only WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 Together document, why not have WCAG 2.0 and MWBP 1.0 together, or if there is a reason for that I think it would be good to explain it here. Comment: WCAG 1.0 has been superseded by 2.0.
- SUPERSEDED before 10/02/2009: Testing with Users and Devices: It would be better to replace "Mobile Web Best Practices" with MWBP for consistency.
- SUPERSEDED before 10/02/2009: Testing with Users and Devices: It would be good to add devices to this sentence: "User testing should always include a full range of users...". Comment: this no longer seems to be in this document.
- Delete what's currently under “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 and Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 Together”.
- Make that heading an <h3> and put it above "If you are not familiar with either WCAG or MWBP, a strategy is to:".
- Add back in the “Everything” lists to the subpages
- Move content from the "WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together" page into the Overview page, adjust navigation.
- Remove table of pages and add “together” link to the list. Remove review note.
- Correct typo “If you have done WCAG 1.0 and considering progressing to MWBP 1.0, then read WCAG 2.0 to MWBP”
- Where it says the success criteria is assigned levels. Link to the section above.
- At the end of the together section put a mention of the subpages so that people don't get confused.
- Remove Appendix B from the overview page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action05]. Not done (not necessary): Change to something like "Some common words are used in the other pages of this document with specific meanings" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action02]
- Incorporate comments from Lisa http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2008Sep/0000.html
- Add “eds.” (editors) to each document in Appendix A: References.
- Change section heading “Why no mapping table?” to “The Relationship Between WCAG and MWBP” and demote “Priorities and Levels” to H3 within that section.
- Remove Scope section, now covered by “Introduction”
- Remove “Managing overlapping requirements” section (move to WAI Introductory document?)
- Incorporate extensive reqrites to Overview page contributed by Shawn, in attachment to email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JulSep/0102.html).
- Add guidelines for reviewers, in “Status of This Document” section.
- Consider putting the documents after "Before continuing with this document, please read the introductory documents:" In bullet list so they stand out [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action03]
- Added "WCAG 2.0 was approved in [future date] and W3C encourages organizations to focus on WCAG 2.0 instead of only WCAG 1.0." to main page and subpages that cover WCAG 1.0? Action http://www.w3.org/2008/09/19-eo-minutes.html#action01
- Overview: Remove WAI Resources and Business Case pages from references, as they are not referred to anywhere.
- wcag10-mwbp: Remove IMAGE_MAPS as the WCAG never discourages the use of them (and nor do the BPs; it just says to ensure they are supported).
- wcag10-mwbp: To FONTS, add 11.2 “Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies”
- wcag10-mwbp: Remove CENTRAL_MEANING as the relationship with WCAG 13.6 “Group related links, identify the group” is treally too farfetched to be useful (grouping links has nothing to do with where they appear).
- wcag20-mwbp: Move MEASURES to “something” list as WCAG allows for other techniques besides relative units.
- wcag20-mwbp: Move CONTROL_LABELLING to “something” list as WCAG allows for other techniques besides
label element. Add explanation.
- wcag20-mwbp: Move COLOR_CONTRAST to “something” list as it depends on the ratio. Add explanation.
- wcag20-mwbp: Clarify that some BPs may appear in more than one list according to the level of compliance achieved.
- Under 2.4.4, Link Purpose (In Context) and 2.4.9 Link Purpose, delete “IMAGE_MAPS may possibly, partially help towards compliance” as it is too tenuous to be useful.
- Add explanatory text to “Addressing” sections, about structure of each.
- Where coverage is by multiple BPs, clarify by adding “covered in different ways by each of...” (meaning that coverage does not require all the BPs)
- Remove commas after WCAG SC numbers.
- In the MWBP-WCAG20 page in the summary list under 2.4.10 Section Headings, there was a note about all the different structural elements available. This is moved to 1.3.1, Info and Relationships.
- In MWBP-WCAG20 page (initially, to try it) “Something”, “Nothing”, and “Everything” sections, move the inconsistent link disclaimer text (“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.”)
- Correct SC numbering and titles in MWBP to WCAG 2.0 page.
- Correct link text and URL of bullet point 3 at the end of the page. Linked to “From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0” instead of “From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0.” Described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0053.html.
- Correct span title of "WCAG 2.0 and MWBP together" mentions WCAG 1.0. Described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jul/0053.html.
Changes suggested by Shawn in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008JulSep/0002.html
- Change everything, nothing and something wording in each page to “These XXs are not related to XXXX” as appropriate.
- Remove date from WCAG 2.0 in References section.
- Change heading “Differences Between WCAG and MWBP” to “Priorities and Levels” and wording.
- Change wording of “How to Use This Document” as suggested.
- Change wording of “Incomplete draft” disclaimer on each subpage.
- In overview page, change “Appendix B: Glossary” to “Special Terms.”
- Remove wai-editors list as address for comments. Move comments material to seperate paragraph.
- In overview page, Status section, 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
- Take “1.0” off of “MWMP 1.0” in all instances.
- In WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0, work through the not-evluated-yet list and either move BPs to everything list or (in several cases) create detail sections for them.
- Short handles in how-to-use table and list. Use consistent handles in navigation bar.
- Include note to explain why there's a table and a list of pages on Overview page.
- Remove table of contents and introduction section heading from “together” page (as it now only has one section).
- Put back “Relationship” in the Overview title.
- Add a subheading “Overview”
- Change “Contents” link in naigation to “Skip to content” and make consistent across pages. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action03]
- Resolved duplicated listing of AUTO_REFRESH in WCAG 2.0 to MWBP by putting both in nothing section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action05]
- Include neither/both row to "how to use this document" table. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action02]
- Put back “Everything” section in the “MWBP to WCAG 2.0” document (was moved to the end of the document but I've now restored it to where it was). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action06
- Change “Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?” to “Why No Mapping Table?”
- Include a disclaimer about links not being consistent. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/27-eo-minutes.html#action04]
By Yeliz and Alan. See WAI Education & Outreach WG minutes for 2008/06/20.
- In navigation at top of page, add link to table of contents.
- Remove footer and copyright from individual pages other than Overview. Replace with horizontal rule.
- No added benefit: Remove this item from the glossary as it doesn't apply to these document now it's split from the how-helps document.
- Abstract: Changed the abstract to make sure that we used the term “overlap” and added a link to the WAI introduction page as suggested in the EO meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action09 and http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action02].
- Status of This Document: Shortened this a lot and highlighted the email@example.com for comments. If there is a public EO list, I think it would be good to add that as well.
- Audience: Deleted this section. It was discussed in the EO meeting that that section could be added to the introduction document.
- TOC: Added HR before and after the TOC.
- How to Use This document: Shortened this section a lot and deleted the table as it was discussed in the meeting to try alternative organisations so when we agree on a structure, we can add it here. “Consider if the
table is necessary once the together document is taken out of the
bulleted list” [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action13]. Added restructured table.
- Scope: I have shortened the scope and changed it to address the comments from the EO meeting.
- Managing Overlapping Requirements: Changed this from "The problem of multiple overlapping requirements" to address the comments from the EO meeting. Also shortened this section. Action was “change the idea
from the problem of overlapping requirements to
managing/implementing overlapping requirements” [recorded in
- Differences between WCAG and MWBP: changed this from "proirities" and also added information about WCAG 2.0 SC levels.
- Appendix A: References: changed this from "Related Documents of Interest" and organised the list of Resources as references.
- Appendix B: Glossary: changed this from "Special meanings of terms used in this document"
- Appendix C: Acknowledgements: changed this from "acknowledgements".
- Change to multi-page document (was “suite”) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action08]
- for the status,
add instructions/information for reviewers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action03]
- in "scope" section, make it clear that this document is not replacing the other two main documents, it is a supporting document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action07 and http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action06]
- Move Business case type information to EO introduction document and
here leave only the technical information [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action15]
- move up the link
to the introductory page, cut down the audience section from here
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action04]
- Rewrite WCAG 2.0 & MWBP 1.0 together document to suggest looking at WCAG 2.0 first and then the "from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0" document[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/20-eo-minutes.html#action12]
Version of 19/06/2008
Actions postponed but not forgotten:
First version after splitting off the how-it-helps material into seperate document.
- [MWBP-WCAG10] Added box styling to priority lists, modifying CSS file.
- [MWBP-WCAG10] Under PAGE_SIZE_USABLE and PAGE_TITLE, removed emphasis on the keyword “aspect”.
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Global replace “How does it especially help users with disabilities” with “How does it enhance accessibility to users with disabilities”
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Under IMAGE_MAPS remove benefits and SC compliance, and add at top “It is not the intent of the BP to discourage the use of image maps.”
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Put explanation of “no added benefit” in glossary.
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Under FONTS, Change text to “Many users do not see fonts-related styling. For example, blind users, those who turn off stylesheets, or use text mode browsers. If information is conveyed by fonts, these users may have difficulty understanding the meaning of content”
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Move the tip “Avoid nesting a control inside a label element as this is not supported in an accessible way by most user agents” from CONTROL_POSITION to CONTROL_LABELLING.
- [All] Move repeating “Back to Best Practices list” link outside visual box.
- [MWBP-WCAG20], [WCAG20-MWBP] To all ocurrences of keywords “possibly” and “partially”, add link to definition.
- Move definitions of nothing, something, everything, to “Special Meanings of Terms Used in this Document”
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Under THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY, mark for deletion the text about alternative versions, as it is based on misunderstanding.
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Under TABLES_LAYOUT, drop mention of browsers with no table support,
- [MWBP-WCAG20] Delete from TABLES_ALTERNATIVES the idea that it might reduce accessibility for screen reader users, on suggestion from MWBP WG.
- [MWBP-WCAG20] include suggestions for accessibility benefits of URIS and VALID_MARKUP (refer to email of 28 Feb 2008 and email of 22 Feb 2008).
- [Overview] Include definition of the terms possibly and partially.
- [MWBP-WCAG20] and [WCAG20-MWBP], where there is a section heading “How does it especially help users with disabilities?” and “Does it give me WCAG 2.0 compliance?” (and vice-versa), change these to be bolded text at the start of the paragraph, closer to the structure of the sections on the BPs and SCs that follow.
- [MWBP-WCAG20] and others, change word order in “How does it help especially users with disabilities” to “” to “especially help”
- [MWBP-WCAG20], Put link to a definition of innate reading level. DONE. The term doesn't appear in the new draft of WCAG, so have used just “reading level” instead which is easier to understand. “WCAG success criterion 3.1.5 Reading Level is related but it concerns a different aspect of language comprehension. WCAG is concerned with a user's reading ability, while this BP is concerned with...”
- [MWBP-WCAG20], under IMAGE_MAPS, Clarify that the SCs do not apply.
- [MWBP-WCAG20], under NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES, in the longdesc tip, change “do rely on it.” to “do not rely on it.” (insert “not”).
- [MWBP-WCAG20], under OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT in the “How does it help...” section, clarify that it is users with disabilities that may not use the technology and assistive technology that may not support it, rather than the general user and general user agent.
- [MWBP-WCAG20], under PAGE_TITLE, add tip about using front-loading.
First update after progressing to First Public Working draft.
- [MWBP-WCAG20], new links from “Does it give me compliance” paragraph back to lists of efforts (for example, “Refer to 3.2.5 Change on Request, coverage at level A.”).
- [MWBP-WCAG20], include WCAG compliance content of POP_UPS.
- [MWBP-WCAG20], include WCAG compliance content of SCROLLING.
- [MWBP-WCAG20], in “Aiming for Level A” and AA remove SCs that don't apply to that level.
This version became the 22 January 2008 Public Working Draft http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080122/
- Prepare document for transition to first public working draft, numerous minor changes.
- Add Zip and GZip archives, and links in overview header.
- Add patent policy for document owned by two working groups.
Version prior to transition to first public working draft.
- Remove version numbering
- Change to Working Draft in main heading, and stylesheet.
- Rewrite, simplify Abstract
- Include in all pages a disclaimer about gaps in the document.
- Remove “Suite of Documents” sections and put explanation in Introduction
- Rewrite “How to Use” section
- Add “Incomplete draft” explanation to document status section.
- Add paragraph to introduce separate WAI Shared Experiences document, in “The Problem of Multiple Overlapping Requirements” section and under Related Documents.
- Add comment to WCAG 1.0 to MWBP page, to explain why so many check points are in the no overlap list.
- Restructure document into multiple pages. Many changes not logged in this version.
- Update references to WCAG 2.0 to match new 11 December 2007 last call draft.
- Move section “Achieving usability for All” to within section on “How Barriers Experienced by Web Users with Disabilities Parallel those in the Mobile Context” and change title to “Testing with Users and Devices”.
- Add content and explanatory comment to “WCAG and Mobile Web Best Practices Together”, trying to work out what it might look like.
- Remove section “How People with Disabilities Use Mobile Devices for Web Access” as it has no content and would better be addressed elsewhere.
- Add cross-reference table to facilitate navigation between three recommendations, based on abstract concepts “Cross-reference”.
- Add cross-reference links from different sections to “Summary of Experience of Content Features by Users” section.
- Add Tip to [STRUCTURE] to cover semantic markup not explicitly mentioned in BP.
- Insert explanatory paragraph at start of “Mobile Web Best Practices and Accessibility” and “WCAG Compliance and the Mobile Web” sections.
- Change title of section from “How WCAG Compliance can Benefit All Mobile Web Users” to “WCAG Compliance and the Mobile Web”
- Change title of section from “How Mobile Web Best Practices can Benefit Users with Disabilities” to “Mobile Web Best Practices and Accessibility” to better reflect what it's really about.
- Split drilldown lists of WCAG 2.0 and 1.0 success criteria to give list of those that can be ignored, similar to that used for MWBP section. Some example entries included, others to be left until work progresses.
- Create new section “Extending from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP 1.0”.
- Create new section “Extending from WCAG 1.0 to MWBP 1.0”.
- Create new section “Extending from MWBP to WCAG 2.0”. Delete now redundant paragraph “To summarise, for WCAG 1.0, compliance with MWBP ensures that content already complies with checkpoints...”
- Create new section “Extending from MWBP to WCAG 1.0”. Delete now redundant paragraph “To summarise, for WCAG 1.0, compliance with MWBP ensures that content already complies with checkpoints...”
- Update BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY and COLOR_CONTRAST. Add reference to WCAG 2.0 contrast ratio, under WCAG 2.0 part and 1.0 part in COLOR_CONTRAST and link to it from BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY.
- Update SCROLLING with input from Miguel García
- Change text of first paragraph of introduction to make it less negative. Smooth the mention of special consideration of needs of users with disabilities.
- Move abstract to beginning of document, including text suggested by Charles in email of 29 November 2007.
- Move last paragraph of “Related Documents of Interest” (about WCAG 1.0 and 2.0) to Scope section. Update it to reflect new emphasis on WCAG 2.0.
- Add WAI Resources page link to “Related Documents of Interest” section. Also WAI Business Case link.
- “Relationship to other W3C Recommendations” changed to “Related Documents of Interest”
- Remove Terminology section. This was intended to clarify the difference between “checkpoint”, “success criterion”, “best practice” and the version-independent WCAG “provision”, but this is now clearer as the WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 sections are now more separate and are redundant (no coverage of both together in the same paragraph).
- Move “Longevity and Versioning” section to “Status of this Document” section and update to cover recent widening of scope to WCAG 2.0.
- In [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS], modify text of “How does it help especially users with disabilities?” to “While this BP is primarily concerned with the limitations of the input mechanism of the mobile device (for example, a small numeric keypad), it also helps users who have difficulty using their chosen input device.” Remove duplicated “This BP does not correspond to...” Refer to messages to MWI BPWG list for November 2007.
- In [AUTO_REFRESH] correct the assertion “it ensures that refresh is initiated only by user request.”
- Try using two paragraphs, “Does it give me WCAG 2.0 compliance?” and “Does it give me WCAG 1.0 compliance?” rather than a global “Does it give me WCAG compliance?” with both together.
- Add “Does it give me WCAG 2.0 compliance?” to [STRUCTURE]. Update STRUCTURE to cover WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1 Info and Relationships and 2.4.9 Section Headings. Add WCAG 1.0 mention of 6.1, “Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets”
- Remove version number from “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0” in top level heading.
- Swap sections “How Barriers Experienced by Web Users with Disabilities Parallel those in the Mobile Context” and “How People with Disabilities Use Mobile Devices for Web Access” to reflect importance. Update table of contents accordingly.
- Add placeholders for all WCAG 2.0 SCs AND WCAG 1.0 CPs, and drill-down lists of WCAG 2.0 SCs AND WCAG 1.0 CPs.
- Add title and class to links to best practices in the BP document, of form “Link to [BEST_PRACTICE] in Mobile Web Best Practices document”. Likewise for WCAG 2.0 SCs AND WCAG 1.0 CPs.
- Best Practices with no added accessibility benefit and no corresponding WCAG provision (those for which there's nothing to say) moved to a list at the beggining of the section. This creates a list of these BPs which are links to the MWBP document. This makes the following section more compact and allows the reader to see at a glance which and how many BPs are and are not related to accessibility.
- In the section on BPs, remove the text “Refer to [BEST_PRACTICE] to understand the Best Practice described in this section” and make the name of the BP a link in the section heading preceding it. This makes the text much more compact and the reader immediately starts with the “How does it help especially users with disabilities?:” making the meaning clearer. Also for WCAG 2.0 success criteria in corresponding section.
- Update contributing groups information in “Status of this Document” section to “This document was developed by the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group and the Education & Outreach Working Group (EOWG) of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).” Remove “Preliminary draft” paragraph. Add paragraph and link, “A record of updates and modifications to this document is available.”
- From mapping document provided by Henny, in message “WCAG 1.0, Mobile Web and Internationalisation Best Practices cross over” of 6 Nov 2007. Edits as described in Alan's reply of 14 Nov 2007.
- In section 5. “How WCAG Compliance can Benefit All Mobile Web Users,” under “How Does it Help Users in the Mobile Context?” remove references to WCAG version. Under “Does it give me MWBP 1.0 compliance?” remove references to WCAG version and change color contrast example to WCAG 2.0. Separate WCAG CP into separate sections, for 1.0 and 2.0. Include example WCAG SCs. Change font color to blue to distinguish level 4 headings from other bold text.
- 14 November 2007. Updating section “Does it give me
WCAG compliance?” to include WCAG 2.0. Update best practices mappings
to include WCAG 2.0, no changes to WCAG 1.0 explanations, only add 2.0 at