Re: MATF Minutes 28 January 2016

Late regrets... with wife at appointment... we're having a baby in 4
weeks...


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kim Patch <kim@redstartsystems.com> wrote:

> MATF Minutes 28 January 2016 link:
> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html
>
> Text of minutes:
>
> Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 28 Jan 2016
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-irc>
> Attendees
> Present Henny, Kathy, jeanne, Kim, Alistair, Jan, Marc Regrets Detlev,
> alan Chair Kathleen_Wahlbin Scribe Kim
> Contents
>
>    - Topics
>    <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
>       1. any other techniques or failures
>       <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item01>
>    - Summary of Action Items
>    <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
>    - Summary of Resolutions
>    <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <agarrison> +present Alistair
>
> <Kathy> https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/#touch-and-pointer
>
> Kathy: working on touch and pointer extension. Looking at understanding –
> careful with numbering because there some automatic numbering
> ... also have people working on techniques and failures for these
> ... I'm still writing the rest of the success criteria. Plan to write that
> this weekend for some of the other ones so that next week we can review the
> understanding for the other success criteria
> ... the other place where we change things based on our conversations over
> the last two weeks 2.4 touch target size 44 x 44 pixels at the default
> pixel size. The other one that goes with that where we left off talking
> last week is 2.5.5 touch target clearance – clearance of at least 48 pixels
> except when user has reduced default scale of content. This one we were
> talking about whether...
> ... it's necessary given we are already specifying a touch target size.
> Because if you have a touch target size of 44 do you need to be specifying
>
> Determining origin of 48
>
> Kathy: do we need both? Wouldn't the center already be specified by
> specifying touch target size
>
> Alistair: specify visible
>
> Jan: I agree
>
> <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets take up at least 48px x
> 48px of the visible display except when the user has reduced the default
> scale of content. (Level AA)
>
> Kathy: still need to figure out 44 or 48
>
> <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets take up at least 44px x
> 44px of the visible display except when the user has reduced the default
> scale of content. (Level AA)
>
> Alistair: 44
> ... measure 44 x 44 doesn't necessarily mean it has to be visible
>
> <Jan> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets measure at least 44px x 44px
> on the visible display except when the user has reduced the default scale
> of content. (Level AA)
>
> Jan: unless we have something which says touch targets can overlap– do we
> allow them to overlap, say small one on top of a large one and 44 x 44
> chunk of the large invisible off to the side. Is that a loophole we want to
> prevent?
>
> Alistair: that should be fine as long as 44 x 44 is available
>
> Jan: has to be measured from the middle – if only a quarter is active and
> it's the right size but
>
> Alistair: as long as it says 44 x 44 visible it doesn't matter that it's
> from the center, just big enough to be able to hit with your finger
>
> Jan: center better?
>
> Alistair: that's venturing into usability
>
> Kathy: boils down to is there an accessibility issue if I have
> overlapping touch targets if they're big enough
>
> Alistair: you obviously won't be able to see one very well – that's a bit
> of accessibility issue but it's kind of usability no one's going to design
> a site where you've got two buttons that will overlap each other
>
> Kathy: I saw a lot of canvas stuff yesterday and it had overlapping stuff
> all over the place and never put it past people to do
> ... failure right now under 2.5.5 touch targets overlapping
> ... maybe that's not a actual failure that we want to look at, or maybe we
> need to adjust
>
> Jan: if we said touch targets measure at least 44, and visual indicator
> says something is a button or touch target
>
> Kathy: you measure 44 on the visual portion of the screen default
> viewport size –is that enough. If you have two areas that are greater than
> 44 by 44 but they overlap you still have 44 x 44 for each touch target
>
> Alistair: I'll touch targets need to be identifiable as touch targets
>
> Kathy: I think we've got that in a different section
>
> <Jan> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets have a radius of at least
> 22px measured from the center of the visual indicator of the touch target,
> except when the user has reduced the default scale of content. (Level AA)
>
> <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets have a radius of at least
> 22px measured from the center of the visual indicator of the touch target
> at default viewport size
>
> Alistair: radius implies round
>
> <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets have a size of at least
> 22px measured from the center of the visual indicator of the touch target
> at default viewport size
>
> Jan: possible problem – imagine send button triangle on the screen. It's
> touch target size is the right size, 44 x 44, but the icon that marks the
> touch target is left justified in the touch target, so that most of his off
> to the right so the user who tries to touch that arrow could end up missing
> it if they are a little bit to the left
>
> Alistair: what about the central portion of the touch target has to
> measure 44 x 44…
>
> Kathy: what do you think Henny
>
> <agarrison> The central portion of the touch target measures least 44px x
> 44px of the visible display except when the user has reduced the default
> scale of content.
>
> Henny: not sure
>
> <Kathy> 2.5.4 The central portion of the touch target measures least 44px
> x 44px of the visible display at the default viewport size
>
> Alistair: if the visible display was 200 x 200 and this measures 44 it
> doesn't necessarily glue the two together
>
> Kathy: we could write a failure for that situation though
>
> Jan: maybe a definition of touch target would help
>
> Kathy: definition of touch target would be good
>
> Jan: a touch target that's underneath another touch target so that it no
> longer takes a touch is not a touch target, and that would rule out using
> that as part of your measurement
>
> Kathy: is everyone happy with the language we have right now for 2.5.4?
>
> Jan: playing devils advocate – are people going to ask with the central
> portion of the touch target is
>
> Kathy: definition of that too?
>
> <marcjohlic> +1 (couple of typos in what was put in IRC, but +1 w/ the
> general idea)
>
> Marc: visual display versus visible make a difference?
>
> <jeanne> +1 visible
>
> <marcjohlic> CORRECTED: 2.5.4 The central portion of the touch target
> measures at least 44px x 44px of the visible display at the default
> viewport size
>
> <marcjohlic> +1
>
> +1
>
> <HennyS> +1
>
> Alistair: still wondering about measures, what about consumes?
>
> Kathy: we can clarify in the understanding document
>
> <jeanne> +1 for measures, consumes adds a new confusion
>
> <jeanne> +1 "is"
>
> Marc: just leave out measures
>
> <jeanne> +1 for removing central portion
>
> Jan: put central portion in another SC
>
> <Jan> 2.5.4 The touch target measures at least 44px x 44px of the visible
> display at the default viewport size.
>
> <marcjohlic> 2.5.4 The touch target is at least 44px x 44px of the
> visible display at the default viewport size
>
> +1
>
> Kathy: do we have to define visual display?
>
> Jan: does a touch target become not a touch target when it's offscreen?
> ... you can imagine AT that can take a touch somewhere and position it
> somewhere else
>
> Marc: developer tools for size?
>
> <Jan> Possible defn of Touch Target: Region of the display that will
> accept a touch action. If a portion of a touch target is overlapped by
> another touch target such that it cannot receive touch actions, then that
> portion is not considered a touch target for purposes of touch target
> measurements.
>
> Kathy: we are using pixels so we can specify in the CSS and specifying
> default viewport size specifically because that is where you would measure
> the 44 x 44 pixels and if default viewport size changes automatically
> adjusts for that. A developer would be able to define 44 x 44 pixels –
> makes it much easier. But the key there is that's default viewport size
>
> <agarrison> Should it be "A touch target" rather than "The touch target"
>
> Kathy: we have display equals device with which is your standard default
> viewport size. As lie as you have that set the 44 x 44 pixels works
>
> <marcjohlic> 2.5.4: A touch target is at least 44px x 44px of the visible
> display at the default viewport size
>
> Discussing visible display
>
> <Kathy> +1
>
> <marcjohlic> +1
>
> <jeanne> +1
>
> <HennyS> +1
>
> +1
>
> <Jan> +1
>
> <Kathy> Touch Target: Region of the display that will accept a touch
> action. If a portion of a touch target is overlapped by another touch
> target such that it cannot receive touch actions, then that portion is not
> considered a touch target for purposes of touch target measurements.
>
> Jan: probably also requires a definition of touch action
>
> Alistair: can we say designed to trigger a touch event
>
> Jan: designed, that's the computational side – but from the user side
> they are taking an action
>
> Kathy: I don't know – what do others think
> ... designed to trigger a touch event versus will accept a touch action
>
> Alistair: touch action better, event could fire a keyboard event too
>
> Kathy: is a pretty good with Jan's original language?
>
> General agreement
>
> <Kathy> 2.5.5 Touch Target Clearance: The center of each touch target has
> a distance of at least 44 pixels from the center of any other touch target,
> except when the user has reduced the default scale of content. (Level AA)
>
> Kathy: proposal to remove touch target clearance – do you agree with
> removal of 2.5.5 right now as we have it in the document
>
> <Kathy> +1
>
> <Jan> +1
>
> <agarrison> Remove +1
>
> <HennyS> +1
>
> <marcjohlic> +1 to remove
>
> +1 remove
>
> <jeanne> +1
>
> <Kathy> M022 Spacing between elements. Mxxx Failure: touch targets
> overlapping
>
> Kathy: right now we have a technique for spacing between elements and we
> have a failure touch target overlapping. Should those move to the previous
> requirement?
> ... do we need those or should they be removed?
>
> Jan: if they're large and overlap slightly that doesn't seem like a
> problem
>
> Kathy: 2.5.4 failure would be if touch target is less than 44 x 44 pixels
> of the visible display, so if you had to touch targets that overlapped and
> it wasn't a 44 x 44 measurement
>
> Jan: maybe touch targets overlapping such that one of them becomes less
> and 44 x 44
>
> <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch targets overlapping such that the touch
> target is less than 44px x 44px
>
> Alistair: negative version of what we just added to the guidelines –
> don't necessarily need
>
> Kathy: if we put that in is a failure it would help clarify when
> something of this nature is actually a failure
>
> <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch target is less than 44px x 44px
>
> <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch target is less than 44px x 44px at the
> default viewport size
>
> Jan: clarity around this is in the glossary which is okay, but it helps
> also to have two failures
> ... comes down to the size – one you have one by itself and it's not the
> right size. The second is failed because overlap
>
> Alistair: more than 44 pixels on the screen passes, doesn't matter if
> it's overlapped
> ... just wondering whether we need to have the failure that says if you
> have two buttons overlapping and you take one below a certain size –
> because you would've automatically failed anyway
>
> <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch target is less than 44px x 44px at the
> default viewport size
>
> <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch targets overlapping such that the touch
> target is less than 44px x 44px
>
> Kathy: these are the two failures for 2.5.4
>
> Alistair first and second one are pretty much the same – if you fail the
> second one you failed the first one
>
> Kathy: we want to clarify that if overlap touch sizes no longer 44 by 44
> it's just clarity for developers
>
> <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch targets overlapping such that the visible
> touch target is less than 44px x 44px
>
> Alastair: just write up a negative version of the success criteria?
>
> Kathy: there are two scenarios one looking at one touch target and the
> other looking at two that are overlapping or adjacent
>
> <agarrison> Failure: A touch target is less than 44px x 44px of the
> visible display at the default viewport size
>
> Kathy: Alistair suggesting combining two failures – thoughts
>
> Jan: two failures very clear
>
> Kathy: WCAG already difficult for some developers to understand – anytime
> we can add clarity it's better.
> any other techniques or failures
>
> Kathy: are there any other techniques or failures you think we should add?
> ... thoughts on A or AA for 2.5.4
> ... listed as AA should it be single A?
>
> <jeanne> +1 to AA
>
> Alistair: consider it on the list?
>
> Kathy: we will send out a note to the list for feedback on that
>
> <Jan> Jan: AA
>
> Kathy: we will leave it at AA for now
> ... we only have one left 2.5.6 device manipulation, we will pick that up
> next week. Jon also put failure technique out there. I'd like us to review
> it on the list. If you have time please read that over and comment on it if
> you've got any changes so that we can also finalize that a next week's call
> Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
> version 1.144 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2016/01/28 17:03:12 $
>
>