MATF Minutes 05 February, 2015

MATF Minutes 05 February, 2015 link:  
http://www.w3.org/2015/02/05-mobile-a11y-minutes.html


Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
05 Feb 2015
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Kathy_Wahlbin, AWK, Henny, Marc_Johlic, Jan, Jeanne, Detlev, jon_avila
Regrets
Chair
Kathy Wahlbin
Scribe
marcjohlic
Contents
Topics
Summary of Action Items

<trackbot> Date: 05 February 2015
<Kathy> meeting: Mobile A11Y TF
<Detlev> I can#t get into the call - using Code: 6283 I get a msg this 
passcode is not valid
<Kathy> that is the right code
<Kathy> 6283 (tel:+1.617.761.6200
<Detlev> yes that 's what I've been dialing and putting in... will try 
again
<Detlev> it worked now
<scribe> scribe: marcjohlic
<Kathy> http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/
Kathy: Sent an email to the list w/ WCAG WG Comments
KW: Overall feedback was good - looking to publish
<jeanne> 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2015Feb/0003.html
KW: A few comments around future releases, but some we should talk about - 
about how we can clarify
... Comments on 2.2 Zoom / Magnification - should we call out that 1.4.4 
is about resizing text w/in the browser vs a browser feature
JA: Didn't really have a discussion on these - just read through the 
comments - that was just one person's comments
Jan: I think we are primarily focused on text - and that we did do a good 
job on calling it out. Willing to add a note if that will help.
KW: From the beginning we're talking about text size - everywhere we've 
talked about text size - so I think we could go back and make a note that 
says throughout the doc we have "text size" called out - unless someone 
has another way to make it clearer
AWK: The review was whether this was ready enough to get additional 
comments - should not read too much into the lack of comments for this 
initial round/review
Jan: I think we're good
JA: Person was saying they wanted us to be more clear that the requirement 
is to have it zoom everything
... Second comment was around phrasing - we can change that - provide 
examples. There are certain words we try to stay away from such as 
"ensure"
... If the language that's in there is not clear, open to changing it
Jan: Also believe that some people may not have been aware that meta 
viewport settings could prevent zooming
... It's possible to block/prevent zooming on mobile - more of an 
awareness issue so that folks are aware of it.
KW: I think we're pretty detailed about that - but do you think there is 
anything we can add to clarify?
Jan: Comment is asking for things you shouldn't do (Failures) but we're 
providing things you should do - techniques vs failures
KW: Yes, and that's what we've done throughout the note
... Is the agreement from the group that we'll leave this as it is - and 
wait for comments to come back when we publish to see if we need further 
clarifification
Group agrees
DF: I think it's fine the way it is
Second comment: I'm not really sure what we are saying here 'Accessibility 
features geared toward specific populations of people with disabilities 
fall under the definition of assistive technology adopted by WCAG and thus 
cannot be relied upon to meet the success criteria. For example, a 
platform-level zoom feature that magnifies all platform content and has 
features to specifically support...
scribe: people with low vision is likely considered an assistive 
technology.'
This phrase makes me wonder how academic the distinction between old 
school AT and current 'native' AT a la screen reader/magnification etc 
is..Does this mean that 'real' text for example, or relative values for 
font sizes must be used for, the text to be resizable? If that is the case 
then maybe call it out?
KW: I don't think any changes need to be made
JA: We're being consistent to the definition in WCAG - and we say that.
KW: If any change needed to be made, it would have to be at the WCAG level 
because we're takign that definitiion
... Any disagreement?
No disagreement
Third comment: "Where the specific WCAG SCs are being mentioned, should 
they be highlighted with a nice background colour, border? Some graphic 
flourish?"
Group tends to agree
JS: Would be grateful if someone could put together some CSS around that - 
that could then be dropped in
<Kathy> http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/
<jeanne> ACTION: jeanne to copy CSS from Appendix A WCAG Techniques for 
highlighting the WCAG SC in the main note. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2015/02/05-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Copy css from appendix a wcag techniques 
for highlighting the wcag sc in the main note. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 
2015-02-12].
Comment 4: In 4.5 Provide clear indication that elements are actionable - 
in the line:
"The WCAG 2.0 success criteria do not directly address issue of affordance 
but are related to:" should we define affordance? Or link to a glossary?
KW: Does anyone know if we have a definition of "affordance" anywhere?
... Jeanne / Andrew - any way to add it?
AWK: Not to WCAG because the glossary is normative
Jan: Maybe we can just define it as a paragraph in that section
AWK: Would have to be a note - and then for future versions we could look 
at pulling that in
KW: Jan do you have a definition of "affordance"
<jeanne> Afford, Affordance [HFES] 2001-04-13 Human Factors & HCI, Al 
Gilman
<jeanne> An affordance is an effective service delivery; one that makes it 
into user space where the user can actually use it. Or the effect of the 
service delivery as observed within user space.
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html
JS: Found a definition in a WAI document from 2003
... It's an overall glossary that we could reference
... Is this a definition we would want to use?
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html#def-afford
Affordance: An affordance is an effective service delivery; one that makes 
it into user space where the user can actually use it. Or the effect of 
the service delivery as observed within user space.
Jan: I agree this isn't a good definition, but it is a useful concept to 
introduce folks to if they are not familiar with it
<Kathy> http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/affordance/
KW: This definition is more what I think about when I think "affordance"
<jeanne> +1 for a simpler term
Jan: Kind of agree that we should change it to something visual - if we're 
talking about visual let's just say it
MJ: As i was reading through it, the term "affordance" threw me off.. 
first time coming across it.
JA: Can we just change affordance to function
DF: I think actionable might be a better term
<Kathy> Providing a clear indication that elements are actionable is 
relevant for web and native mobile applications that have actionable 
elements like buttons or links, especially in interaction modes where 
actionable elements is commonly detected visually (touch and mouse use).
<jeanne> Propose: especially in interaction modes where actionable 
elements are commonly detected visually (touch and mouse use).
JA: Seems to match the definition of "functionality" in WCAG - so we could 
change "affordance" to "function"
DF: Function might be ambiguous vs using affordance
<Kathy> The WCAG 2.0 success criteria do not directly address issue of 
clear indication that elements are actionable but are related to:
<Kathy> The WCAG 2.0 success criteria do not directly address issue of 
clear visual indication that elements are actionable but are related to:
KW: Any objections or other suggestions?
Jan: Like the text, but the last part "are related to:" is a bit awkward 
to read
JS: "related to the following Success Criteria"
<jeanne> The WCAG 2.0 success criteria do not directly address issue of 
clear visual indication that elements are actionable but are related to 
the following success criteria
Group agrees
Comment 5: In 4.4 the WCAG SC listed is not bold - just need to add that 
formatting to be consistent
JS: Updated
Comment 6: I would like to see the introduction paragraphs referencing 
WCAG2ICT and Mobile Web Application Best Practices expanded. More about 
why theye're mentioned there, relevance to this doc.
<jeanne> While the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)'s W3C Web Accessibility 
Initiative (WAI) is primarily concerned with web technologies, guidance 
for web-based technologies is also often relevant to non-web technologies. 
The W3C-WAI has published the Note Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to 
Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT) to provide 
authoritative guidance on how to
<jeanne> apply WCAG to non-web technologies such as mobile native 
applications. The current document is a mobile-specific extension of this 
effort.
Jan: It seems clear enough
AWK: I didn't get the impression that MC viewed it as a deal-breaker. 
Could be something we add it later if needed (or more comments)
KW: OK leave it for now unless someone has something to add
<jeanne> W3C Mobile Web Initiative Recommendations and Notes pertaining to 
mobile technologies also include the Mobile Web Best Practices and the 
Mobile Web Application Best Practices. These offer general guidance to 
developers on how to create content and applications that work well on 
mobile devices. The current document is focused on the accessibility of 
mobile web and applications to people
<jeanne> with disabilities and is not intended to supplant any other W3C 
work.
Comment 7: I would change "1.1 WCAG 2.0 and Mobile Content/Applications" 
to "1.1 Mobile Content/Applications" and include just the stuff 
introducing the mobile space. Then change "1.2 Other W3C-WAI Guidelines 
Related to Mobile" to "1.2 W3C-WAI Guidelines Related to Mobile", add a 
sub-heading about WCAG, and move content from the previous section here. 
Then continue with the ones about ATAG...
scribe: and UAAG. Keep the focus of this document mobile, not on a 
specific set of guidelines.
Jan: The problem there is that one of the goals of this document is to 
state that WCAG is highly relevant to the development of Mobile content. 
My goal was to push the sentence around this as high in the doc as 
possible
... So talking more about how special mobile is - or what W3C says - might 
go against that goal
JA: Tend to agree w/ Jan because people want to see how this pertains to 
WCAG. This isn't just mobile best practices - this is how mobile relates 
to WCAG
KW: Any problem that we are more focused on WCAG vs UAAG?
... Thoughts on changing the title to remove UAAG
JA: Makes sense - right now title seems to convey more than we're 
describing
<Jan> Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C-WAI Guidelines 
Apply to Mobile Devices
KW: We do call out the UAAG / ATAG and we call out WCAG2ICT
JS: I don't think there would be a problem w/ Jan's suggested title change
<Jan> Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C-WAI Guidelines 
Apply to Mobile
AWK: Mobile devices vs mobile content vs ?
Jan: Agree - let's drop "devices" and go wtih Moble
Group agrees
<jeanne> +1 to Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C-WAI 
Guidelines Apply to Mobile
KW: We still have a reference - in page link that was not linked - 
"Touchscreen Gesture INstructions"
JS: Yep updating now
KW: Interested in getting this published and getting further comments.
... We still have UAAG WG reviewing this. They are meeting today. We can 
review their comments on next week's call
... Jeanne when will changes be in? Will you send note to WCAG WG?
JS: Yes - I think we can send them a link - just working on the CSS 
change. All other changes should be up in a min.
KW: Great - will send a note to the WCAG WG
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20150203/results
JS: We have 2 comments that have come in from UAAG
... Looks like we've already just fixed the comments (same as from WCAG)
KW: We can wrap up then
trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to copy CSS from Appendix A WCAG Techniques for 
highlighting the WCAG SC in the main note. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2015/02/05-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes] 



Regards,
Marc Johlic
Accessibility Consultant - Web Technologies & Multimedia, IBM 
Accessibility