Structure Mockup for “Relationship Between
Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines”

W3C Editor's Draft 4 April 2008

This version:

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/restructure/v2_Overview.html

Editors:

Alan Chuter (Fundación ONCE / Technosite)

This multi-page document illustrates two different concepts for the structure of the document. It uses as an example the “From Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 to Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0” page. The structure depends on the information that the expected user will need to obtain from it. This introductory page discusses very briefly the main questions it attempts to answer. For further discussion of the reasons for the document refer to the use cases.

There are three alternative structures. The original structure can be seen in the published Working Draft. In it, the document is structured by WCAG SC. While it is titled “From Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 to Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0” it is structured as a mapping from WCAG to MWBP, not a guide to how to move on from WCAG to MWBP, which requires a different structure oriented more towards the target BPs than to WCAG SC. As an alternative, the page WCAG 2.0 to MWBP, seperate sections has a section for the BPs which answers the question How does it enhance accessibility to users with disabilities? and a section dealing in turn with each SC and answering the question Does it give me MWBP compliance?. In discussions with the WAI EOWG it was suggested that there should be some way to have only one section (in this case the BPs) with the two questions asked in a different way in the same section. This is done in WCAG 2.0 to MWBP together which has only a breakdown into individual BPs, and for each one answers the questions “How does it enhance accessibility to users with disabilities?” (“Why should I do this if I'm mainly concerned about in users with disabilities” and “How has WCAG 2.0 helped me comply with this?”

Questions Answered in the Pages

There a re three main questions to be answered.

We want to do all of MWBP. For each BP, how has our overall WCAG effort helped?

This is important, it helps quantify the effort involved. It is broken down by BP and dicusses anything done in WCAG that saves effort in doing the BP. It is covered in the “together document” under Individual Mobile Web Best Practices Compared and in the seperate sections document under “Individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria Compared”.

Our main focus is accessibility, how does each MWBP help users with disabilities?

This is important for justification. Even if our main focus is accessibility we might consider adopting some BPs if it would also help users with disabilities. It corresponds to the second use case “A stakeholder has achieved compliance with one recommendation and now aims for compliance with the other. The document might explain what additional effort is required and how to leverage existing investment to comply with the other recommendation efficiently.” It can't say how much additional effort is required, but it can help estimate how much has already been achieved. It is covered in the “together document” under Individual Mobile Web Best Practices Compared and in the seperate sections document under “Individual Mobile Web Best Practices Compared”.

For each WCAG CP we've done, how does it help me with the MWBPs?

This is interesting but less important. It doesn't help quantify the effort or provide justification. It is the question “Does it give me MWBP compliance?” It corresponds to the second additional use case “A stakeholder is confused about, or is unaware of, the relationship between WCAG and Mobile Web Best Practices, seeing them as separate and disjoint, and missing the synergy and the overlap between them. The document might explain how they are similar and how they differ, and that the development and evaluation processes are similar.” It requires a SC-by-SC section like that in the seperate sections example. The both-together structure has no SC-by-SC section so this does fit in (but there's no reason not to include the section, it's just that the simple single-section structure is lost). Or is there a way of avoiding the need for this section? For example could a drill-down list of links be used?