Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

Mobile Overlap pages 2012 updates

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

Nav: EOWG wiki main page

This page is inactive. If you add information to it, make sure to notify EOWG Chair and participants.

The following resources have old "Updated" dates (2008 & 2009), yet they are still very relevant. Can we do a quick review and see what ought to be updated in them? It would be good to have more recent Updated dates on them, to help increased some people's comfort with their relevancy.


template for comments:

  • ...comment {name}

Overview page

Web Content Accessibility and Mobile Web: Making a Web Site Accessible Both for People with Disabilities and for Mobile Devices
Overlap revision with changes highlighted

Is there any information in this that is out of date?:

  • [done. changed "developers" to "designers and developers"] An accurate overview of summarizing the benefit of combining both WCAG & MWBP into the design process. In the intro the term developer is used. From my experience, this sort of wording can be suriprisingly impactful in scaring off non-developers. A designer might read the word "developer" and then run away screaming. {Peter}
  • [done. To "Designing to the guidelines together, instead of separately, can make the process more efficient" added: " — especially when considered early in the project."] Perhaps this bit about "the process more efficient" could be expanded. It may be benefical to emphasise the high cost of putting off following either WCAG/MWBP until later in a project's life cycle. A developer/project planner might read the brief explanation as "Great, I'll follow one now and do the other later, since they overlap anyways..". I can elaborate if need be. But then again, perhaps for an overview this amount of information is {Peter}
  • [done, as listed above] Good point on "developers" and the fact that early preparation, planning, testing in the project life cycle reduces the cost and results in high quality applications/sites etc.{Vicki}
  • [done - swapped examples under Similar Solutions to use only WCAG.0 (not 1.0)]</span> A general observation. Frequently, WCAG 1.0 checkpoint is referenced first. I would prefer to see the WCAG 2.0 success criteria referenced first instead since, for people new to web accessibility, this might either confuse them or they may think that WCAG 1.0 is the guideline to follow. {Vicki}
    I think instead of deleting them, I would move them under the 2.0 references (gray them out is a good idea) and I would also add an explicit note saying that people should refer to WCAG 2.0 materials. {Yeliz}

What might we want to edit?:

  • [done.] Heading "Similar Solutions". Instead of "best practices for content mobile-friendly.", suggested change "best practices for mobile-friendly content." {Vicki}
  • [done. clarified it more simply as "Additionally, people with disabilities sometimes use mobile devices to access websites."] Heading "Similar Barriers". Last sentence in the paragraph. "Additionally, people with disabilities may use a mobile device to access the Web site." Suggested modification: "An increasing variety of mobile devices are used by people with disabilities but accessing a Web site using a mobile device only becomes a reality if web sites are built with accessibility in mind. {Vicki}
  • [done.] Heading "Resources". First bullet. Instead of "lists Web interaction that is similar ". Suggestion: "lists web interactions that present similar difficulties for a user with a disability and a mobile user." {Vicki}
    I think the current wording is simpler and better. {Yeliz}
    EOWG preferred existing wording. Vicki OK with it now (fixing typo helped :).
  • [done. changed to Doing Both - Designing for Mobile and for Accessibility] Heading "Doing Both". Suggested change "Designing sites for Mobile devices and for Web Accessibility guidelines". Or something similar. {Vicki}
  • [listed for later revision] Look at approach overall -- e.g., not begging about overlap with mobile, but look what's cool! (and, btw, accessibility invented most of these mobile interactions!){~shawn}
  • [done. added MWABP and added "(including applications)" to "Websites (including applications) can more efficiently meet both goals..."] per comment below "...designers/developers may think the principles provided only apply to Web sites and not to Web applications...."
  • [done.] updated minor style things like "Web sites" to "websites"

Shared Experiences page

Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities
Experiences revision with changes highlighted

Is there any information in this that is out of date?:

  • [done. moved 1.0 after 2.0, "grayed it out", and added note: Note: W3C WAI recommends using WCAG 2.0, instead of WCAG 1.0]
  • [done. added "and web applications" a couple of places. added MWABP and 3.5.3 and 3.6.4] Looks good. My only comment is about the focus on content. I realise content is the focus here but designers/developers may think the principles provided only apply to Web sites and not to Web applications. Explicitly emphasizing that both content and UI/application are covered may help increase the relevancy of this page, especially with developers. It's a shame the MWABP ( mainly only covers different forms of caching techniques (bandwidth/memory/..), or it would be great to put along side MWBP as reference on certain crosover points - especially in the Operable section. (Well OK there is one crossover point .. "3.5.3 Design for Multiple Interaction Methods" :-){Peter}
    Thanks, Peter! These were written before MWABP. It would be great if we could integrate MWABP some. Do you have specific suggestions on points in MWABP that would fit in <>? For example, how would we address 3.5.3 Design for Multiple Interaction Methods ?{Shawn}
    Good question. I haven't had a thorough look on MWABP's overlap with WCAG yet. I think this would be valuable though. I'll add it to my to do list.{Peter}

What might we want to edit?:

  • [done.] updated minor style things like "Web sites" to "websites"