Since there are folks in either camps of thinking:
a) tablets are mobile devices
b) mobile devices don't include tablets

I think its more comprehensive to call out tablets specifically so that people who think B, don't misinterpret it to mean that tablets are excluded. People who think A won't run into that risk of missing something, they'll just think its redundant.

also, i'd say that it's a fairly trivial thing here either way ... if as a reader somebody gets tripped up at the first sentence, they're not going to have a good time when trying to read the rest of this dense document.

@avkuo the convention is that items are only moved to "Drafted" when they either contain a resolution in the form of a PR or a Draft Response (where it is felt no PR is necessary).

It appears that you may be proposing your response as a draft response? The convention is that:

1. it would be in the form of a comment prefaced by Proposed Working Group response
2. it would not use first person language, but instead "we" language, since it is intended to be an official response from the group
3. the issue would be given a label of Response-Only

Please have a look at #2973 (comment) and feel free to either make a new comment, or modify your existing comment to make it into a proposed response.

Once the working group approves a response, they will alter 'proposed' to 'approved' in the comment and the issue will be closed

Since there are folks in either camp of thinking: a) tablets are mobile devices b) mobile devices don't include tablets

It's more comprehensive to call out tablets specifically so that people who think B, don't misinterpret it to mean that tablets are excluded. People who think A won't run into that risk of missing something, they'll think its redundant.

Hi @avkuo I see your point. However, we also have camps of thinking with e-readers as mobile devices. But some of them are tablet size.

My main concern is about the device categories and why we use them. Otherwise, we might need to keep creating new categories for other devices according to the camps of thinking that can also be distinct according to the document localization.
Also, there are documents in W3C stating " Mobile devices range from small handheld devices (e.g. feature phones, smartphones) to somewhat larger tablet devices. "
Or

https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/mobile/#intro

“Mobile accessibility” refers to making websites and applications more accessible to people with disabilities when they are using mobile phones and other devices. WAI’s work in this area addresses accessibility issues of people using a broad range of devices to interact with the web, including:

• phones and tablets ...

Hence, we either follow what is already declared across a range of documents or recommend and review other documents that put tablets and phones under the same device category.

if as a reader somebody gets tripped up at the first sentence, they're not going to have a good time when trying to read the rest of this dense document.

Agree! I would rather to simplify the text being more generic for hardware to include any forthcoming new device instead of adding sub-categories of devices.

Proposed Working Group response

Since there are people in either camps of thinking:
a) tablets are mobile devices
b) mobile devices don't include tablets

We would rather call out tablets specifically in this instance to clarify for people who think mobile devices don't include tablets, that tablets aren't excluded from accessibility guidelines.

We do not believe it to be contradictory to include tablets in examples of mobile devices or mobile accessibility on other W3C pages, rather including tablets as an example is serving the same purpose (as this instance) to reaffirm people in both camps of thinking that tablets aren't excluded from accessibility considerations.

...could also circumvent the ambiguity by changing the sentence to desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones.

happy to do a PR for the above sidestep if people think it would be a satisfactory middle ground

happy to do a PR for the above sidestep if people think it would be a satisfactory middle ground

Sorry, I'm disagreeing because I think the prior text will cover more use cases.

happy to do a PR for the above sidestep if people think it would be a satisfactory middle ground

Sorry, I'm disagreeing because I think the prior text will cover more use cases.

I see your point, but I still think that the prior text may cause some misunderstanding on devices creating a specific category.
W3C itself has document already stating that:
_Mobile" is a generic term for a broad range of wireless devices and applications that are easy to carry and use in a wide variety of settings, including outdoors. Mobile devices range from small handheld devices (e.g. feature phones, smartphones) to somewhat larger tablet devices. _
Source: https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/#h-wcag-2.0-and-mobile-content-applications

Hence, we should adjust one of the documents, since they have distinct concepts on device categories. It would be the same if someone asked to include "ultrabooks" as a separate item from laptops.

I would vote to adjust it to @patrickhlauke suggestion rather than keeping the current version.

@avkuo This change would need to be approved by the group, so Patrick creating a PR for the group to discuss is fine.

FWIW PR is now here #3776 for discussion

as said in #3776 (comment) let's make a swift decision either way on this one (either accept the PR and make the change, or close the PR and close the issue here just with a comment)