Dear WAI Interest Group Participants,

We are interested in collecting experiences, stories, and perspectives
on people with disabilities using the Web via mobile devices. For
example: What are use cases of accessing the Web via a mobile device
that are particularly useful for a person with a disability? What are
unique issues accessing the Web via mobile device (versus desktop or
laptop) for people with disabilities?

We are also interested in similar information about Web access via
mobile device by “seniors”, older users who may have Web accessibility
needs related to aging. Are there cases when accessing the Web via a
mobile device is particularly useful for older users, or they have
unique issues using the Web via a mobile device?

Please note that we are limiting the scope of this query to *specific
accessibility issues using the Web*, and *not* more general hardware
issues, non-Web functionality, etc.

You can send your feedback to me, the WAI interest list or you can send them
to wai@w3.org.

Share it

The first draft of the application design was only intended to support Web accessibility (WCAG) but we decided to keep going simply from the reaction of folks we told about the application. The result is you will be able to label Web sites to make claims about compliance to WCAG, MobileOk and Section 508.

It does not stop there. The application can also create content labels for Web Sites that use a Creative Commons license and we’ll be adding more standards and codes of conduct as they come down stream.

I spent the day on the phone to our partners, touching base to say Hi and that they can expect and update shortly. If I haven’t called you yet, don’t worry, I will. Feel free to get in touch anytime.

I was delighted to hear partners still being so positive towards Accessibility. We all know the many reason and benefits of why a Web site should be accessible and comply with Web Standards. We need to push it so that brand/product owners also understand those benefits.

We will be sending out an update very soon.

We currently have more than 50 partners across at least 10 countries and looking to scale this when we raise funding. To find out more about the programme and sign up to the Accessibility Partner Programme visit here.

Share it

To avail of it you simply execute some keyboard commands to open the WebAnywhere home page and away you go.

WebAnywhere is a web-based screen reader. It requires no special software to be installed on the client machine and, therefore, enables blind people to access the web from any computer they happen to have access to that has a sound card.

Since this is a Web based application chances are it will support mobile phones but we’ll have to wait until its released to test that.

Below is a video demonstration of someone using WebAnywhere to check their email, project deadline and the bus time table.

Share it

The W3C has just published a first public working draft of a Relationship between Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines document. This document aims to bridge the gap between WCAG and the Mobile Web Best Practices by providing direct mappings between the guidelines. If you know what WCAG checkpoints your site conforms to, then this document will tell you what additional steps you need to take to also make it Mobile OK.

It’s a very useful document as it demonstrates just how little effort is actually required to make your website Mobile OK.

Share it

I’m a believer in looking forward and I’d like to think I’ve got good insight to the future of mobile technology and trends, so my thoughts and conversations are nine times out of ten, positive and forward thinking. However, the mobile industry is the least collaborative of all industries so before we can push forward, we need each stake holder to work together to enable interoperability.

I was reminded of the email thread when I read a note by Alexia Golez on Facebook. So, rather that write my predictions for the mobile industry, I’ve decided to paste my email below for your review.

Alexia’s note on Facebook

Time and time again, I read blogs and hear the tech industry talk up how convergence is the name of the game and that every gadget we will own in the future will do a hundred things. Why can’t we stop, take a breath and say, “I don’t want a hundred poorly-sketched features, I want ten well-thought out tasks that I can execute on”? Is it greed, advertising, company PR?

I just want a gadget that does things right. A phone with decent web browsing. Bin the camera. Go back to basics Gadget Industry.

My response on the Mobile Monday London forum

Could we start with some basics. For example, it would be nice if my mother could send me a picture message of her new puppy. She’s on Vodafone Ireland. I’m on O2 UK. Heaven forbid should I be able to view it on my phone. I’d almost be happy with an SMS containing a link to a site which contains the picture.

I received a link as predicted but when I visited the site it didn’t recognise my UK number. So, I didn’t get to see any fluffy pictures of her puppy – I was devastated as you can imagine.

Vodafone Ireland, please take note as I’m very confident it’s not a problem on the O2 network. At least print the picture and send it in the post.

MMS was 5 years old last year and we still can’t get the basics right.

Click here to leave a comment on Alexia’s Facebook note.

My mobile orientated posts appear to attract the most comments, so feel free to disagree with me.

Share it

I heard the Google mobile being touted around the time we were providing mobile test consultants to Disney, to help it setup a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) last year. Unfortunately for Disney (and Segala for loosing the contract), it decided to can the project. I say unfortunately because it has the content to deliver a compelling family mobile, but it just didn’t get it technically or commercially in my opinion.

Google however, has the money and entrepreneurship to make it in mobile, especially if it’s goal is anything to do with building the ecosystem and platform to help implement real mobile Web applications.

So, what’s the type about the Google phone?

Google has unveiled the software that will power future mobile phones by acting as the new cost effective operating system that’s likely to trigger a price war. In the US mobile networks such as Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile will carry the Google-powered phones.

China Mobile, Telefonica in Spain and Telecom Italia are among the operators that have signed on to provide services outside the US. So, does this mean that O2 will reap the benefits of Telefonica’s buying power in the UK and Ireland? That would surely provide O2 with an unprecedented head start in the Mobile Web market given that it already has an exclusive deal with Apple to sell the iPhone.

According to Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive and chairman

This partnership will help unleash the potential of mobile technology for billions of users around the world.

As I’ve been saying since the first W3C Mobile Web Initiative (MWI) face to face meeting two years ago when we really started talking about the Web coming to mobile, there are more people in the world who don’t have access to the Web than there are people with access. The vast majority of these people live in developing countries where mobile networks is cheaper to role out than fixed line. This means mobile will be the primary access device to the Web for most people around the world in the (not too distant) future.

In a call to reporters, Schmidt said:

We want to create a whole new mobile experience for users. “Mobile users want the same applications on the phone as they use on the internet. There have been many reports of a so-called Google phone in recent months.

Again I can’t help but feel I’ll be saying ‘I told you so’ to my WAP colleagues in the industry. WAP is good but it’s not the future. I’m confident that if Nokia, Apple and Google all believe that users should and will have a full browsing experience on mobile, then my bet is safe. Although I did articulate my opinion at the first ever European W3C MWI event at BAFTA more than 2 years ago when my bet wasn’t so safe.

Our vision is that the powerful platform we’re unveiling will power thousands of different phone models.

I’m hoping Google’s new operating system upon which developers can create interoperable applications that will see the end to the crap that is currently being churned out. I mean, why the hell can’t the manufacturers get simple things such as picture messaging right, let alone anything difficult like the Web? Device profiles, I hope, won’t be needed in the future but only time will tell.

Source

BBC via Roam4free on Twitter.

Share it

Next on the agenda is a vocabulary for the mobile web best practices and blogs.

If there is a code of conduct YOU would like seen turned into a content label vocabulary then drop me a message on http://contentlabel.org/ and we’ll try and cook one up

Share it

MOK is a claim that anyone can make if their Web site conforms to a defined subset of MWBPs. It comes in 2 flavors, Basic and Professional.

MOK Basic is a series of machine determinable tests and demonstrates that a Web site owner has made reasonable steps to create a mobile friendly user experience.

MOK Pro covers the best practices which are not necessarily machine testable. These are not yet available for public review.

W3C Candidate Recommendation means that the Mobile Web Inititiative (MWI) Working Group is happy with the document as it stands and is publishing it with the goal of getting real world implementation experience.

The MWI Working group has a task force who is charged with delivering a tool for checking MOK Basic conformance. This tool is currently in alpha and can be found here. Try it out yourself and see if your Web site is MOK compliant.

In my next post I’ll commentate on the test cases for the MobileOK Professional Trustmark which I’m heavily involved with. Making conformance claims to both levels of MobileOK will come in the form of a Content Label (AKA POWDER to the W3C).

Share it

Please refer to a recent post on this subject if you’re looking for hyperlinks to other resources.

I must declare an interest before commentating though. I’m a member of the W3C MWI Steering Council. Segala is not only one of the seven original Founding Sponsors, it’s also co-author of the conformance specification called mobleOK.

I must also declare that I’m particularly interested in mobileOK for two reasons. First, because it will help make the Web more accessible to more people, including those in developing countries where mobile is their primary access point to the Web. Secondly because making conformance claims about mobileOK will come in the form of a Content Label. As most of my readers will know, Content Labels underpin Segala’s business model of enabling trust on the Web based on compliance with standards and codes of conduct.

Now that I’ve got the disclaimer out of the way, whilst taking the opportunity to talk about Segala’s business proposition…

The Mobile Web vs WAP debate seems to crop up regularly as some people continue to protect their revenue stream from WAP, by claiming that the open Web on mobile devices is spawned by the devil.

The W3C MWI Best Practice Guidelines are of benefit to what some may call, traditional Web developers who know little if anything, about WAP or anything mobile. They simply want to build Web sites as they do today, but with the added benefit of them also working better on mobile devices.

Ok, so building mobile friendly Web sites isn’t easy and it’s not exactly perfect by a long shot. However, creating new standards is about future proofing. It’s not about creating a quick fix. They will continue to improve as will mobile technology, tariffs, bandwidth etc and has human behavior changes.

I met a guy tonight in Adam Street who very quickly (and wrongfully) *assumed* that I wanted to see the end of WAP as soon as I mentioned W3C MWI. I found him very defensive as if he were trying to protect his revenue stream, which comes from WAP and only WAP. I found his attitude to be very dismissive and typical of a WAP-centric extremist with no interest in anything outside of WAP. He is right to protect his revenue stream. I wouldn’t expect him to care about the future of the Web – that’s for us idealists to think about. Some of us get the commercials and some don’t. I’d like to think I’m in the former camp.

I reminded him that I never mentioned WAP, to which he replied, ‘yeah well the W3C is confusing developers’. First may I point out that there is room for both. Secondly, the W3C MWI in my opinion, is targeted at Web developers, not mobile developers. Accept the fact that mobile and Web developers are different. Some get both but most don’t.

The ‘one Web’ for me, is about bringing access to the current Web (hyperlinked documents as invented by Tim Berners-Lee) to mobile devices. It’s not about changing or impacting WAP sites which are developed specifically for mobile phones by mobile developers. There will always be a need to develop specifically for mobile devices. Likewise, there is a use case to develop one site that renders according to the device capability, whether that’s a desktop computer or a mobile device.

The W3C is being referred to as if it was wasting time/energy. May I point out that the W3C is made up of companies, government agencies, associations, universities, freelancers etc. from around the world. It’s not made up of a bunch of white coats at MIT. The W3C MWI includes every stake holder which has an interest in both traditional Web and mobile specifics.

The W3C is in my opinion the best and only consortium that should be responsible for creating and harmonizing *Web* standards – based on the assumption that it works with everyone who is qualified to contribute.

Share it

I asked the question on Twitter and at least 5 people kindly responded. Twitter restricts each message to 140 characters though, so it’s not conducive to long conversations. So I’ve decided to take it to a more traditional medium, this blog. I’ll probably ask the question on Facebook too as I’m likely to get quite a few responses there.

So, earlier in the week I reported my mobile lost. Thankfully, O2′s insurance (as brilliant as it is!) not only replaced the mobile, it also sent me all the accessories (now I have 2 of everything). I’ve never experienced such a good service. I’m so happy not to be with Carphone Warehouse anymore.

As soon as I switched my new phone on, I noticed the software looked different. It also has additional ring tones for profiles. I actually prefer the new software. However, the battery life doesn’t appear to be as good as the one I had in my original phone. I knew before buying the mobile, that the battery wasn’t great. However, the original one was fine.

Either of the following must be true:

1. I didn’t charge it as well as I should have
2. The battery has also changed and isn’t as good as the one I had previously

If they have been changed, I could have either the new or old versions. I’m sure the phones they have for replacements aren’t as new as the ones in the shop.

Can anyone please confirm if the software and battery has been replaced. Also, it would be great to know whether I have the old or new version.

Share it