Re: Comments on proposed new SC 2.5.3

A couple of word smiths on it:

2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: Single touch and/or pointer activation is
triggered on the up-event, or has at least one of the following is true
(Level A):

​- ​
Confirmation is provided which can dismiss activation; or
​- ​
Activation is reversible; or
​- ​
A mechanism is available to allow the user to trigger activation on the
up-event; or
​- ​
Timing of activation is essential; waiting for the up-event would
invalidate the activity.

Note: This is when platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures
is not turned on.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:44 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> > wording) for situations where a down-activation is ok (on-screen piano,
> space shooter, etc, where a mistaken activation is not that
> dramatic/problematic,
>
> I've added an exception based on the wording of 2.2.1. And added language
> to the understanding.
>
> >>>I'm not completely sure that wording (which includes "Up-Event") is
> completely appropriate, as it already hints at the technical solution,
> rather than describing the more generic problem it's trying to avoid (i.e.
> the "Avoid that users accidentally activate functionality..." aspect)
>
> The success criteria have to be testable statements. I don't think
> "up-event" is technology specific. I think it's understandable and crosses
> most technologies. I'm nervous about adding a layer of abstraction. We did
> that with an earlier draft, and it was confusing...
>
> The Guideline level is where we deal with generalities. This is under a
> new proposed guideline:
>
> Guideline 2.5: Touch and Pointer: Make it easier for users to operate
> touch and pointer functionality.
>
> The new language is:
>
> 2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: Single touch and/or pointer activation is
> triggered on the up-event, or has at least one of the following is true
> (Level A):
>
>    1. confirmation is provided which can dismiss activation; or
>    2. the action is reversible; or
>    3. a mechanism is available to allow the user to trigger activation on
>    the up-event; or
>    4. timing of the event is essential and waiting for the up-event would
>    invalidate the activity.
>
> Note: This is when platform assistive technology that remaps touch
> gestures is *not *turned on.
>
> I've also updated the Understanding Doc.
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.3
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> > wording) for situations where a down-activation is ok (on-screen piano,
>> space shooter, etc, where a mistaken activation is not that
>> dramatic/problematic,
>>
>> I agree as well and this was something I had commented in the past an
>> recently -- we need an exception for when down press without reversal is
>> essential to the activity such as playing a piano.   We should model it
>> similar to those found for SC 2.2.1 Timing.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jonathan Avila
>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>> SSB BART Group
>> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>> 703.637.8957 (Office)
>>
>> Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
>> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:46 AM
>> To: David MacDonald
>> Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Comments on proposed new SC 2.5.3
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/04/2016 03:56, David MacDonald wrote:
>> > One slight problem of asynchronous collaboration is that a few hours
>> > after Detlev's comments we had the weekly call and worked for a hour
>> > on it ... It is no longer tied to touch, and addresses, I believe in a
>> > fairly elegant way, all the concerns to date...
>> >
>> > 2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: Single touch and/or pointer activation
>> > triggers on the up-event, or has at least one of the following
>> > characteristics (Level A):
>> > - provides confirmation,
>> > - is reversible,
>> > - a mechanism is available to trigger on the up-event.
>> >
>> > Note: This is when platform assistive technology that remaps touch
>> > gestures is not turned on.
>>
>> I'm not completely sure that wording (which includes "Up-Event") is
>> completely appropriate, as it already hints at the technical solution,
>> rather than describing the more generic problem it's trying to avoid (i.e.
>> the "Avoid that users accidentally activate functionality..." aspect)
>>
>> Also, the wording there doesn't include exemption (in the normative SC
>> wording) for situations where a down-activation is ok (on-screen piano,
>> space shooter, etc, where a mistaken activation is not that
>> dramatic/problematic, and the responsiveness of firing on down is essential
>> to the control itself)
>>
>> However, I agree this proposed new wording is already much better than
>> the one I initially commented on/reacted to :)
>>
>> P
>>
>> > Also have revised the understanding document and provided some
>> > alternative language for the SC.
>> > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5
>> > .3
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Patrick H. Lauke
>> > <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     On 14/04/2016 15:53, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>> >
>> >         Just taking a minute to think about 2.5.3
>> >
>> >         Echoing Patrick's advice that we should not focus on touch if
>> the
>> >         issue is more general, it seems fairly obvious that  "2.5.3
>> Touch Up
>> >         Activation" or "2.5.3 Single Taps and Long Presses Revocable"
>> >         describes an issue that is equally valid for mouse pointer
>> >         activation.
>> >
>> >         Which suggests we might draw the boundary wider and rename it to
>> >         something like SC 2.5.3 "Support undo"
>> >
>> >         Which contradicts the renaming I have suggested in the last
>> telco.
>> >         "Touch Up Activation" sounds easier (which is a benefit), but
>> >         narrowing the issue to touch seems inappropriate for a SC - it
>> would
>> >         be OK on the level of Technique.
>> >
>> >         So itf we try to tackle the general issue of supporting undo by
>> not
>> >         triggering things on touchstart / mouseDown, the question
>> remains
>> >         wehther it is really inside scope for WCAG.
>> >
>> >
>> >     Going back even further, rather than "undo" was the original issue,
>> >     fundamentally, about "Avoid that users accidentally activate
>> >     controls and/or have a way to 'bail out'"? (which won't win any
>> >     terseness awards, but thought I'd throw the lot in there).
>> >
>> >     So the normative part can, in a tech agnostic way, hopefully convey
>> >     this idea (which is just as applicable to keyboard, switch, mouse,
>> >     touch, voice activation, etc users) that an app/site should be built
>> >     in a way that a user doesn't accidentally click on things they
>> >     didn't intend to, and that if they already started a click
>> >     activation (e.g.  touch down, mouse button already pressed down,
>> >     etc) they either have a way of cancelling this activation (by moving
>> >     their finger or mouse while still pressed outside/sufficiently away
>> >     from the control before lifting their finger/releasing the mouse
>> >     button), OR by providing some way of undo-ing/reverting the action -
>> >     IF the action is "of consequence" (e.g. if it was a touchscreen
>> >     piano, or the fire button of a real-time [rather than turn
>> >     based/tactical] space shooter, it's no big deal if it activated by
>> >     accident, and an undo would not be practical/possible).
>> >
>> >     Then, in techniques, it can go further into tech specific "bind
>> >     event listeners to both touchend / the "up" AND the generic "click"
>> >     / activation; for mouse, don't listen to "mouseover" but "mouseup"
>> >     AND "click"; etc.
>> >
>> >     P
>> >     --
>> >     Patrick H. Lauke
>> >
>> >     www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk> |
>> >     https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> >     http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> >     twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>
>>
>