MATF Minutes 4 June, 2015

MATF Minutes 4 June, 2015 link: 
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html

participants: Kathy, Marc, Jon, Detlev, David, Jeanne, Kim, Jan

Text of minutes:


  Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference


    23 Jul 2015

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-mobile-a11y-irc>


    Attendees

Present
    Kathy, marcjohlic
Regrets
Chair
    Kathleen_Wahlbin
Scribe
    jeanne, Kim


    Contents

  * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
     1. Continuation of the Survey Discussion-
        https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20150717_survey/
        <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item01>
  * Summary of Action Items
    <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<trackbot> Date: 23 July 2015

<Kim> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 23 July 2015

<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20150717_survey/results

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

Kathy: On the last call, we had talked about Touchend


      Continuation of the Survey Discussion-
      https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20150717_survey/

<Kathy> http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/Techniques/M003

Last week we didn't have a lot of expertise on Touch Events and touchend 
where they can cause problems with keyboard access.

Kim, with touchend you can slide your finger off without activating it. 
This is important.

Jon: There maybe situations where there it is acceptable for touch 
action -- like putting your signature on it.
... the keyboard aspect is more for on-screen signature.
... If you are drawing a letter, you don't lift your hand until the end 
of the signature.

<David> Keyboard: All functionality of the content is operable through a 
keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual 
keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that 
depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. 
(Level A)

<David> Note 1: This exception relates to the underlying function, not 
the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, 
the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent input but the 
underlying function (text input) does not.

<David> Note 2: This does not forbid and should not discourage providing 
mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation.

Detlev: Are there any other examples

Jeanne: a Flyout menu

Jon: Gestures like scrolling

David: THis is the WCAG exception - if the paths are not straight 
between the endpoints, The signature would be exception.

Jon: and there are more exceptions: drag and drop.

David: the exception is the Path -- not necessarily not a straight path.

Kathy: Jan said that we should limit it to actions that cause a change 
of context.

Kim: a Swipe gestures?

Detlev: What is the difference between a change of context -- for 
example, a radio button?
... pressing a link, selecting a checkbox -- a more binary activity.

Kim: what are you gaining for not letting your finger off it.

Jon: it allows you to quickly glance at something without opening it 
full screen.

Kim: I see the shade control. Does that have to be an exception?

Detlev: This is a technique for a developer that is bound to specific 
web sites. Is that correct?

Jon: I think it goes beyond apps

Kim: the Shade, you don't slide your finger off it, you flick it back 
up. If you are used to this action, is the user going to be confused if 
it doesn't behave the way they expect?

Detlev: The different user agents allow different behaviors. It is 
beyond the scope of what web developers can control. Can't we bracket 
that you and focus on what web developers can do?

Jon: Web devvelopers can create Shades.

Kim: @@

Detlev: It applies to more things like a checkbox, a button, a link.

Kim: Better to define what you want and not have it apply to everything 
else.

Jon: We need the success criteria with all the exceptions, than the 
Technique could focus on one aspect.

<Kim> Kim: said moving an icon to a different position on the screen is 
also direct action like shade

Jon: we need to have Failure techniques

Kathy: Would it make sense to draft the Success Criteria now, or do we 
need more research.

Jon: The challenge is that we go back and forth

<David> +1

<David> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G107.html

Jeanne: We can start writing what will eventually become success 
criteria as long as we don't call them normative success criteria yet. 
WE can flag them so we know that is what it will be, once we are 
chartered to do that.

Detlev: This is a modification of an existing Technique.
... for those it is valid, whether it is a touch or mouse interaction

Jon: there isn't an exact parallel with G107. With this touch technique, 
we are talking about users putting their finger on an element that they 
don't want to. It doesn't fit well into the current WCAG>

Detlev: you are right, it is different.

<scribe> scribe: Kim

Jon: this is really about with a touch device it so much easier for 
someone to accidentally touch the wrong thing especially with motor 
dexterity challenges.
... I don't know exactly where it fits -- helping the user prevent 
errors almost related to that but not

Detlev: maybe touch operable but that doesn't exist yet

Jeanne: we should be able to write things that are not in WCAG -- not 
yet, but that's the direction we're going

Jon: people are really looking for this -- at least a best practice 
someplace where the experts agree

Kathy: as long as we maintain WCAG

David: May pick up WCAG with extension for mobile
... like a Zen diagram with WCAG inside it

Kathy: given that -- regardless of what principle it would go under is 
there a success criteria in here that we can roughly word -- this 
scenario that we've been talking about

David: it would definitely go in operable

Marc: somewhere under 2.2

Jon: feels like some of our potential success criteria don't fit under a 
number like 2.1 but they may fit under 2. Could we create our own numbers

David: I would say yes when we were making WCAG we thought of all kinds 
of other success criteria that got dropped

<David> Operable: 2.5 User can recover from wrongly placed finger while 
finger remains on screen

Kathy: I doing that it might be easier to have it as an extension -- no 
conflict with other extensions, we'll have to wait and see how much 
crossover there is
... it's not just the success criteria but adding aanother whole 
guideline -- if we added a guideline for touch or touch operability we 
could have some success criteria under that. So if we went down that 
path what would be some of the success criteria that we could make sure 
we don't lose at this point

David: Guideline said something about touch events and all are touch 
events would be in this particular success criteria -- all our techniques

<jeanne> We have sections in Mobile Accessibility Note that we could 
build from.

David: mention behavior that technology -- you can put your finger on 
the screen and move it without activating an event. We could have a 
success criteria that require that -- this is a new way of interacting 
we never anticipated a blind person interacting with the screen. It's a 
whole new area. We can create a bucket for all that stuff -- all the 
characteristics of touching like the...
... size is...
... big enough
... characteristics, sizes, behaviors

Jon: primarily related to principal 2, these could be a success criteria

David: we may find that in these extension specs we may need to provide 
guidance it's not testable, so we couldn't make it required. We will 
probably run into that more in cognitive

Jeanne: at least we will know which is testable and which isn't -- mark 
it so we can change it later. We've done a lot of this already..
... we'll have to go back and recode as details get worked out, but we 
are the leading group in figuring out extensions and what they can do -- 
that's why a lot of the stuff isn't worked out yet but the way we do it 
and the problems we find in the successes we find will shape other 
taskforces: cognitive, low-vision

Kathy: ideas for success criteria that would go under a new guideline so 
we don't lose track of the things we talked about today?

David: the mobile note we have right now -- written things so that their 
success criterion?

Jeanne: just coded them that way

Kathy: review for Jan - touch doesn't fit under guideline, touch 
guideline and success criteria under that

Jon: what we want to capture from today's discussion is the exceptions 
we talked about touch end and touch start
... direct control -- would like the exception to be a little bit more 
broad than just the examples we thought of

<Jan> JR: Wondering if mouse and other pointers could fit under such a 
new guideline addressing touch

Detlev: things that involve tap gestures rather than slides

David: we can probably solve most of the problem just by saying buttons 
and links and probably two or three other things -- static things, 
things that don't require movement, there are other ways we can say it

Detlev: action initiated by touch start such as text entry boxes. is 
there any harm on doing that on touch start as long as you don't change 
the contents?

David: I don't see why you wouldn't want to do that on touch end -- you 
have to take your finger off to start touching anyway. Say I didn't get 
it right, slide into it, lift my finger off and then start typing. I 
think that's fine. I think interactive elements that are static or don't 
require movement or something like that

Detlev: do you want me to add those conditional stuff as we go forward 
with this technique

David: we want to add success criteria technique is one layer below -- 
it's a principal and a pretty fundamental principle and doesn't require 
us to talk about specific technologies
... for success criterion it would be a little bit shorter the title 
would maybe be a sentence or something we just need to find a pithy way 
to say it to capture what it is we are trying to say. It's basically 
anything that's interactive and static that you don't need to move on it 
in order to make it work we want to make sure that it's touch off. 
That's the starting point

Kathy: we can change it to be more of a success criteria and then build 
off of that -- the actual techniques we can look at what we have in 
notes, the exceptions. That might be a good way to go

David: I'm excited about making a new success criterion

Jon: one more comment about exceptions -- why it might be useful to have 
exceptions. There might be other ways to solve this problem -- could you 
and your application say I'm going to allow things to be on direct touch 
but put a delay factor in their, and I want activated for one second or 
two second and give them time to touch something else -- could that meet 
the requirements of users?

David: yes, but from a usability perspective people will get anxious if 
things don't happen right away

Jon: if you release your finger it would happen immediately but if you 
touch your finger, and then drag away. If you haven't moved your finger 
away and three seconds is going to initiate anyway or if you lift your 
finger on the place you touch it will activate immediately

Detlev: it's not a very common paradigm so I wouldn't be surprised if 
people were surprised -- it would need user testing at least

Jon: not saying it's great just trying to think of exceptions. how do we 
meet the outcome based goal

David: after we get these drafted I can run them by mobile developers -- 
can you think of anything you can do that this would mess up? I have 
some sources, people doing movable app for professional organizations 
I'm sure others have that too

Jeanne: wording from UAAG -- "provide a mechanism to" and then 
developers have a means to solve that in a way that works best for them

Kathy: at the end of the call -- great discussion. Detlev do you have 
enough to rework this as a success criteria.

Detlev: sure -- I don't know where to put it because we don't have 
success criteria marked up yet -- can we create a dummy 2.5?

Jeanne: send it in email -- I'll put it in the document

Kathy: Detlev, if you want to send it to David first for feedback.

Jeanne: send it to the list that's the best way

<jeanne> regrets for next week

Kathy: send others so we can put them on a survey


    Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
version 1.140 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2015/07/23 16:07:15 $

------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
___________________________________________________

Kimberly Patch
President
Redstart Systems, Inc.
(617) 325-3966
kim@redstartsystems.com

www.redstartsystems.com <http://www.redstartsystems.com>
- making speech fly

Blog: Patch on Speech
+Kim Patch
Twitter: RedstartSystems
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________