RE: Transition Request for FPWD of Mobile Accessibility

If there is a specific area where language should be tightened up we should make sure that we note that but as others have noted, this is a First Public working draft, so we can fix things when others comment and we can fix things when we comment.  But if we don’t get it out the door for comment we will debate this one item for a few weeks, miss the opportunity to point many people to the draft at CSUN, and actually accomplish less than if we hold it back and try to perfect the language further.

We even have a question for people to respond to that prompts feedback on this issue:
5. Have we sufficiently explained why keyboard interface and modality independent controls are needed in the mobile environment?

My view, and the view of the WCAG group at the time when a review was conducted and people responded to a survey and participated in a WG call discussion, is that this is ready for public feedback.  If we keep reviewing it ad infinitum I’m sure that we will find other issues, but the public review is a form of crowdsourcing, and given that we’ve asked for feedback on the point being discussed I don’t think that we’re in danger of embarrassing ourselves.

Does that sound reasonable to people?

Thanks,
AWK

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:36 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Allen Hoffman'
Cc: 'Jan Richards'; 'David MacDonald'; jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org'; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; 'Jeanne Spellman'
Subject: RE: Transition Request for FPWD of Mobile Accessibility

I am in 100% agreement with David, Allen and Gregg on this. This document will very often be used by itself, and therefore in this document it must be crystal clear that keyboard interface support is vital and key.

This is a showstopper. If it is not very clear in this document then mobile browsers and mobile developers will avoid implementation of this important requirement. Mobile should be adding new and additional paradigms, not retiring existing important support for accessibility.



* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> | Office: 703-371-5545

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Allen Hoffman
Cc: Jan Richards; David MacDonald; Jonathan Avila; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Jeanne Spellman
Subject: Re: Transition Request for FPWD of Mobile Accessibility

I am a bit confused by some of the discussion about keyboard access not being important on mobile devices or gesture based devices.

Of course Keyboard access is critical for people being able to use the devices and software who cannot use the touchscreen or cannot make gestures.

And since ALL of the smartphones HAVE a keyboard interface  — I’m not sure why there is any discussion about not keeping this as a prime requirement.

  *   the presence of a physical keyboard is not required.    a Bluetooth or USB interface for keyboards is fine.

Note that even the iPhone - has both a keyboard interface and keyboard equivalents to all of the accessibility gestures — so it is keyboard operable fro the Keyboard Interface.


If there are mobile devices that have a keyboard interface - but that do not have keyboard navigation — then that is the reason for INCLUDING the requirement — not excluding it.  (we don’t remove wheelchair access requirements because there are some building that don’t have wheelchair access).

NOW - if there area mobile devices that have NO Keyboard Interface — (e.g. a phone built into a broach) then the provision could be written to say

“For any device that has a physical or wireless keyboard interface, all functionality shall/must be available using the keyboard interface.”

That would eliminate any concern about devices that do not have a keyboard interface — and also end the confusion about devices that have one — but that most people -control through a  gesture or voice or any of the other modes that are potentially exclusionary.


As to content — it shall/must always provide keyboard access — so that those who have devices with keyboard interfaces - can use them to access the content.

(my thoughts/ opinions)

Gregg



On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov<mailto:allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>> wrote:

Just my two cents worth after “not” being in the weeds on this.
While mobile platforms for some may not have keyboard support, giving guidance on how to improve is great, but clearly stating that keyboard interface access is required is critical.  Accepting otherwise would really break the keyboard success criteria.


Allen Hoffman
Deputy Executive Director
The Office of Accessible Systems & Technology
Department of Homeland Security
202-447-0503 (voice)
allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov<mailto:allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>

DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
202-447-0440 (voice)
202-447-0582 (fax)
202-447-5857 (TTY)
accessibility@dhs.gov<mailto:accessibility@dhs.gov>

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.  Thank you.

From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:42 AM
To: David MacDonald; Jonathan Avila; WCAG; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Jeanne Spellman
Subject: RE: Transition Request for FPWD of Mobile Accessibility

Hi David,

I wrote a good chunk of the keyboard section (3.1).  I share your view that keyboard accessibility is crucial (and no, we did not intend to treat gestures with the WCAG path exception).

I'm open to tightening up the keyboard accessibility wording where appropriate in the next draft (this is just the first public working draft).

That said, there are mobile operating systems that have not yet added keyboard navigation support, and so we need to find wording to help app developers on those platforms do the best they can.

Cheers,
Jan


(MR) JAN RICHARDS

PROJECT MANAGER

INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)

OCAD UNIVERSITY



T 416 977 6000 x3957

F 416 977 9844

E jrichards@ocadu.ca<mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca?Subject=Re%3A%20AUWG%20Teleconference%20for%2017%20March%202014%20%28Boston%20time%20has%20changed%20-%20%20please%20re-check%20time%29&In-Reply-To=%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E&References=%3C0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB012E4B50AC%40ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca%3E>

________________________________
From: David MacDonald [david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
Sent: February-25-15 12:16 AM
To: Jonathan Avila; WCAG; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Jeanne Spellman
Subject: Re: Transition Request for FPWD of Mobile Accessibility
The keyboard issue to me is very important. I think the document should be very clear that all functionality including gesture outcomes must be achievable via keyboard for it to meet WCAG. I don't think this is clear in the document.

The 3.2.3 Consistent navigation issue is not as important to me. All of the examples in 3.2.3 understanding are about navigation elements, all of our discussion 2001-2006 when this success criteria was being formed were about navigation in the days when there were not many templates, and so I'm nervous about any interpretation that over reaches that. But it is something that could be addressed in revision.

Cheers,
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
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 Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote:
David, when you say show stoppers – are you saying that these are show stoppers for putting this out for public comment as a working draft or show stoppers that must be addressed before non-working draft publication?  Please let us know.

In regards to your concern with 3.2.3 -- the WCAG understanding page for SC 3.2.3 states:<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-consistent-locations.html>
The intent of this Success Criterion is to encourage the use of consistent presentation and layout for users who interact with repeated content within a set of Web pages and need to locate specific information or functionality more than once.

This sounds very pretty similar to what we have and thus the mobile document seems consistent with other WAI guidance – to be specific our current understanding documents do talk about consistent presentation and layout already – so the mobile document is not pushing WCAG any more than is already done.

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>

703-637-8957<tel:703-637-8957> (o)
Follow us: Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#%21/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/#%21/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter<http://eepurl.com/O5DP>

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:42 PM
To: Jeanne Spellman; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Transition Request for FPWD of Mobile Accessibility

I've read top to bottom and agree with almost everything... there are a few important issues
​and a few nits
.

​The important show stopper issues are:

-ambiguity about the need for keyboard alternatives for gesture actions in section 3.3 and section 4.6
-a creep on WCAG requirements for consistent navigation SC 3.2.3 in section 4.2 which could impact the meaning of 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 in WCAG

There are a few other nits that are not show stoppers for me.

A walk through with details below:​

======================
 I think 3.3 needs a bullet with explicit mention that every touch gesture should have a keyboard equivalent, although there is a bullet in 3.4 about this it's not clear that this is necessary for 3.3 issues in the mobile doc.

perhaps there is no mention of a keyboard equivelent requirement because of the exemption in 2.1.1
"except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)"

This WCAG exemption was intended for drawing programs and when the user uses a mouse to draw something...I don't think the exemption should apply to gestures even though they depend on the "user's movement between endpoints".

==================================
I think the mention of keyboard in 3.4 is a bit soft ... It says "should" rather than "must"
"Therefore, even when device manipulation gestures are provided, developers **should** still provide touch and keyboard operable alternative control options.


=====================
Section 4.2
"Components that are repeated across multiple pages should be presented in a consistent layout....Consistency between the different screen sizes and screen orientations is not a requirement under WCAG 2.0."

This infers that consist component layout is required within screen sizes.

I don't think this is quite what WCAG was getting at with SC's 3.2.3, 3.2.4.
3.2.3 was really just about left
**

navigation
**
menus, rather than components, and 3.2.4 was about labeling and identification rather than placement. I'm not saying that authors shouldn't
place other things consistently
, but I think this could lead to confusion about Consistency as it is required in WCAG
, which it isn't  from my memory of those discussions and the current WCAG text.


3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.

3.2.4 Consistent Identification: Components that have the same functionality within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. (Level AA)


I think section 4.2 of the mobile requires some rewriting
to correct this confusion.


====================


- the following sentence about orientation is confusing to me. I read it 4 times and am still not sure what it means.

"Therefore, mobile application developers should try to support both orientations. If it is not possible to support both orientations, developers should ensure that it is easy for all users to change the orientation to return to a point at which their device orientation is support"

It's the part about "ensure that it is easy for all users to change the orientation to return to a point at which their device orientation is support"

that confuses me...



========================

4.4
This sentence confuses me

"When multiple elements perform the same action or go to the same destination (e.g. link icon with link text), these should be contained within the same actionable element. "

I guess it means, put the lined image and image text in the same anchor. But I had to read it 4 times.

================

4.5
-Conventional style: Underlined text for <add>inline</add> links, color for link

======================

4.6
"Therefore, instructions (e.g. overlays, tooltips, tutorials, etc.) should be provided to explain what gestures can be used to control a given interface and **whether** there are alternatives. "

I think the word *whether* leaves it ambiguous whether there need to be keyboard alternatives. I think WCAG requires keyboard alternatives for all gestures.

================



Cheers,

David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:613.235.4902>

LinkedIn

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

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org<mailto:jeanne@w3.org>> wrote:
>
> Judy,
>
> The Mobile Accessibility Task Force of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) and the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) requests approval to transition "Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile" to First Public Working Draft. This is planned as a W3C Note.
>
> Title:
> Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile
> Shortname:
> mobile-accessibility-mapping
> Version ready for publication as FPWD:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/WD-mobile-accessibility-mapping-20150224/

> Editor's Draft
>
> Estimated Publication Date:
> Thursday 26 February 2015
>
>
> == Abstract ==
>
>    This document, “Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other
>    W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile” describes how the Web
>    Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [WCAG20] and
>    its principles, guidelines, and success criteria can be applied
>    to mobile web content, mobile web apps, native apps, and hybrid
>    apps using web components inside native apps. It provides
>    informative guidance, but does not set requirements. It also
>    highlights the relevance of the User Agent Accessibility
>    Guidelines 2.0 [UAAG20] in the mobile context.
>
>    This document is intended to become a Working Group Note and is
>    part of a series of technical and educational documents
>    published by the [20]W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
>
>      [20] http://www.w3.org/WAI/

>
>
> == Status of This Document ==
>
>    This section describes the status of this document at the time
>    of its publication. Other documents may supersede this
>    document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest
>    revision of this technical report can be found in the [21]W3C
>    technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

>
>      [21] http://www.w3.org/TR/

>
>    This document is a First Public Working Draft by the Mobile
>    Accessibility Task Force (Mobile A11Y TF) operating under the
>    terms of its [22]Work Statement under the joint coordination
>    and review of the[23] Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
>    Working Group (WCAG WG) and the [24]User Agent Accessibility
>    Guidelines Working Group (UAWG), which is part of the [25]Web
>    Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the [26]World Wide Web
>    Consortium (W3C). This document is intended to become a [27]W3C
>    Note.
>
>      [22] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/work-statement

>      [23] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
>      [24] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/

>      [25] http://www.w3.org/WAI/

>      [26] http://www.w3.org/

>      [27] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#WGNote

>
>    Feedback on this draft is essential to the success of this
>    guidance. The Mobile Accessibility Task Force asks in
>    particular:
>     1. Is this document helpful in understanding the applicability
>        of WCAG 2.0 and UAAG 2.0 to the mobile environment?
>     2. Is the format of this information helpful for designers,
>        developers and testers of content that can be viewed with
>        mobile devices and in mobile apps? Is it useful for
>        policymakers?
>     3. In Appendix A, is listing relevant existing WCAG 2.0
>        techniques helpful for mobile content and mobile app
>        developers?
>     4. Are there additional accessibility needs in the mobile
>        environment related to the WCAG principles that we should
>        address?
>     5. Have we sufficiently explained why keyboard interface and
>        modality independent controls are needed in the mobile
>        environment?
>
>    To comment on this document, send email to
>    [28]public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org> ([29]subscribe, [30]archives)
>    or [31]file an issue in Github. Comments are requested by 26
>    March 2015. In-progress updates to the document may be viewed
>    in the [32]publicly visible editors' draft.
>
>      [28] mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>      [29] mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf-request@w3.org<mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf-request@w3.org>?subject=subscribe
>      [30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/

>      [31] https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/issues

>      [32] http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/

>
>    WCAG 2.0 is a stable web standard. Comments on this document
>    will not affect WCAG 2.0 wording.
>
>    Publication as a First Public Working Draft does not imply
>    endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and
>    may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any
>    time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than
>    work in progress.
>
>    This document was produced by a group operating under the [33]5
>    February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. The group does not expect this
>    document to become a W3C Recommendation. W3C maintains a
>    [34]public list of any patent disclosures made in connection
>    with the deliverables of the Web Content Accessibility
>    Guidelines Working Group and also maintains a [35]public list
>    of any patent disclosures made in connection with the
>    deliverables of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working
>    Group; those pages also include instructions for disclosing a
>    patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent
>    which the individual believes contains [36]Essential Claim(s)
>    must disclose the information in accordance with [37]section 6
>    of the W3C Patent Policy.
>
>      [33] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

>      [34] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32212/status

>      [35] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/36791/status

>      [36] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential

>      [37] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure

>
>    This document is governed by the [38]1 August 2014 W3C Process
>    Document.
>
>      [38] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/

>
> == Delta specification ==
>
> This is not a delta specification.
>
>
> == Decision to publish: ==
> UAWG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2015Feb/0006.html

> WCAG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2015Feb/0019.html

> Mobile-A11y-TF: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item03

>
> --
> _______________________________
> Jeanne Spellman
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
> jeanne@w3.org<mailto:jeanne@w3.org>
>
>