Re: What is "mobile" (was Re: Fwd: Screen Reader Audio on Mobile)

i agree with your first paragraph

but Im not sure you need more extensions — or perhaps extensions at all.  

techniques can be attached to guidelines as well as SC.   Unless you have a new requirement that everyone will reach consensus on - that is testable (objective) and that applies to all types of content — you don’t really have an SC candidate.     I am concerned that the focus on SC is causing much energy and good ideas to be lost.    I would start out trying to just list good advice and techniques - and create a great applications document that is not constrained buy the SC requirements and structure.      THEN if and when it is complete — you have found a couple things that always apply to all content and that everyone agrees should be required — then and only then — would I come back to the SC discussion.       As it is — I am seeing too much good material and effort being laid aside or twisted and constrained to try to fit into the SC requirements or format. 

Happy holidays

Gregg




> On Dec 17, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Apologies for once again dredging this up (and for what no doubt will be another stream of consciousness on my part), but I still believe that in light of the increasingly blurred line between device categories (touch-enabled laptops, small-screen non-touch computers, and more recently concepts like Microsoft's "Continuum" which allows phones to act as full-fledged PCs by connecting a large display, keyboard, mouse) having an document written for "Mobile" is not very future proof.
> 
> Instead, I'd be more inclined to split out specific inputs/outputs into discrete extensions instead - e.g. making SCs specific to touchscreen input, separate SCs specific to small screen form factors, etc.
> 
> In some cases (just skimming over http://kwahlbin.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/) it may not even be necessary to have new SCs, but to simply add more informative examples to the existing WCAG 2 Understanding and Techniques - looking for instance at the rough ideas for 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, these to me feel more suited to the generic WCAG 2 Understanding as examples, rather than warranting wholly new SCs that are "mobile" specific.
> 
> To address the "but developers who are working on mobile will be looking for a document that mentions 'mobile'" counter-argument, I'd then rather see an informative or normative new document being created which directly points to the relevant parts of WCAG 2 core, touchscreen-specific extension, small-screen extension, etc, as well as the new examples in Understanding - to basically act as a topic-focused index pointing to the more appropriately organised SCs and additional materials. Effectively, an extended version of something like http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/
> 
> Otherwise, I see a risk that by the time the "Mobile" extension for WCAG 2.0 is published, we'll already have such a diverse and fragmented landscape of different types of devices (not necessarily "mobile" in the traditional "smartphone with a touchscreen" sense) that developers will once again be left cherry-picking and interpreting different WCAG 2.0 (and extension) documents in order to find SCs that apply to their specific case (as mentioned, we already have laptops with touchscreens...so, as developer, do I need to worry about core WCAG 2.0 and then "just" the touchscreen-specific parts of "Mobile" extension?)
> 
> P
> 
> On 26/10/2015 05:00, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>> That said, I don't see why the technique buckets that the Mobile Note
>>>> (and Understanding WCAG) points to couldn't be named along the lines
>>>> you suggest "Touchscreen extension" etc.
>>> 
>>> The techniques/undestanding, but not the actual guidelines? Hmm, as
>>> long as that's clear enough to devs...but as said, probably too late
>>> to backtrack on that (which is why I think, going back to my first
>>> point, that it's important to stress in the initial scene-setting for
>>> the document the way that "mobile" is used as an umbrella term).
>> 
>> 
>> if we have made a mistake in naming the document or effort - we should
>> not perpetuate the error.   It only makes it worse and confuses the
>> issue and the readers.
>> 
>> Also - the name needs to reflect what is meant.  or else it is more
>> confusion.
>> 
>> I don’t think the fact that a word is used a lot - is a good reason to
>> use it where it does not belong.   Just a good reason for it to be in a
>> dictionary.
>> 
>> No?
>> 
>> /gregg/
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
>

Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 23:26:45 UTC