Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Vibration API Comment

+1

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com
> wrote:

> +1 on behalf of Knowbility
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
> Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:00 PM
> To: public-apa-admin@w3.org
> Subject: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Vibration API Comment
>
> Colleagues:
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> Architectures (APA) Working Group on our review of the Vibration API
> specification:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PER-vibration-20160818/
>
>
> This CfC follows on APA Action-2084:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2084
>
>
> *       Proposed Comment
>
> The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group has found no
> specific problem in the Vibration API specification itself. However, we do
> request addition of the following section to this specification because of
> the need to properly support access to web content for users who are
> actually impeded from using web content effectively by vibrating devices.
>
>
> Accessibility Impact Statement
>
> The Vibration API allows applications to send a silent notification to a
> user in response to an event.  To date vibration seems generally associated
> with notifications and not as an augmenting modality for enhancing
> interaction with touch interfaces.  We expect that as Web developers
> discover the use of Vibration beyond notification, a variety of creative
> applications of vibration will emerge.
>
> While vibration is a powerful and effective medium of communication for
> many users, there are users that need to disable and/or control their
> device’s vibration element at a global level. For instance, a person with
> Attention Deficit Disorder may need to block vibrations to avoid
> distractions. Also, a person with Epilepsy may have an application that is
> detecting vibrations for tracking symptoms.
>
> For these reasons, the user agent SHOULD inform the user when the API is
> being used and provide a mechanism to disable the API (effectively no-op),
> on a per-origin basis or globally.
>
>
> Note:
> For example, an implementation might abort the algorithm because no
> vibration hardware is present, the user has set a preference indicating
> that pages at a given origin should never be able to vibrate the device,
> the user has disabled vibration at a global level, or an implementation
> might cap the total amount of time a page may cause the device to vibrate
> and reject requests in excess of this limit.
>
>
> *       ACTION TO TAKE
>
> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
> support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though messages
> of support are certainly welcome.
>
> If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
> proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later than
> 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, Friday 16 September.
>
> Janina
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures        http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops