Edit comment LC-1855 for Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group

Quick access to LC-1854 LC-1855 LC-1856 LC-1857 LC-1858 LC-1859 LC-1896 LC-1897 LC-1898 LC-1899 LC-1900 LC-1901 LC-1902 LC-1903 LC-1904 LC-1905 LC-1906 LC-1907 LC-1908 LC-1909

Comment LC-1855

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Bryan Sullivan <BS3131@att.com>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeW3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 /**/ code { font-... W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 W3C Working Draft 28 September 2007 Abstract Status of this Document Table of Contents Appendices 1 Introduction 1.1 Levels of mobileOK 1.1.1 mobileOK Basic 1.1.2 mobileOK Pro 1.1.3 Out of Scope 1.1.4 Beyond mobileOK 1.2 Applicability 1.3 Claiming mobileOK conformance 2 Conformance 2.1 Use of Terms must, should etc. 2.2 Validity of the Tests 2.3 Testing Outcomes 2.4 Conduct of Tests 2.4.1 Order of Tests 2.4.2 HTTP Request 2.4.3 HTTP Response 2.4.4 Meta http-equiv Elements 2.4.5 CSS Style 2.4.6 Included Resources 2.4.7 Linked Resources 2.4.8 Validity 2.4.9 White Space 3 mobileOK Basic Tests 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH and REDIRECTION 3.2 CACHING 3.3 CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE 3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and VALID_MARKUP 3.5 DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE 3.6 EXTERNAL_RESOURCES 3.7 GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING 3.8 IMAGE_MAPS 3.9 IMAGES_RESIZING and IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE 3.10 LINK_TARGET_FORMAT 3.11 MEASURES 3.12 MINIMIZE 3.13 NO_FRAMES 3.14 NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES 3.15 OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT 3.16 PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT 3.17 PAGE_TITLE 3.18 POP_UPS 3.19 PROVIDE_DEFAULTS 3.20 STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE 3.22 TABLES_ALTERNATIVES 3.23 TABLES_LAYOUT 3.24 TABLES_NESTED A Acknowledgments (Non-Normative) B References (Non-Normative) BestPractices CSS GIF JPEG POWDER RFC2119 RFC2617 Techniques UTF-8 WCAG XHTMLBasic11 XHTMLModularization XML10 XML11 C Relationship between Best Practices and mobileOK Tests (Non-Normative)
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

"The tests do not assess usability, rather, they assess whether the content can be provided in a way that is likely to achieve a basic level of interoperability with mobile devices":
[bryan] The tests seem to contradict this statement. There are aspects of usability and efficiency as well as interoperability that seem to be the focus of some of the MWBP recommendations, and in the MOT, the tests. For example:
3.1 AUTO_REFRESH and REDIRECTION (efficiency)
3.2 CACHING (efficiency)
3.5 DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE (usability)
3.6 EXTERNAL_RESOURCES (efficiency)
3.7 GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING (efficiency, unless variations in spacing as rendered are meant as an interoperability problem)
3.12 MINIMIZE (efficiency)
3.14 NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES (usability)
3.16 PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT (efficiency, related to to the sum of all responses from an initial request)
3.17 PAGE_TITLE (usability)
3.19 PROVIDE_DEFAULTS (usability)

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: Propose to resolve 'no': Maybe we just need different wording. The intent was to say "these tests only make sure you haven't done something clearly wrong" and to not say "these tests make sure you've built a nice, elegant, well-designed site." I personally feel the wording is probably as fine as anything else we could imagine. RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't think any ambiguity is introduced by this

Resolution: No We take your point but we don't think any ambiguity is introduced by this.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)