Re: Reworking Moble TF Doc to turn into WACG Extension

Patrick: Sure, but this SC would be relegated into the "touch/mobile"
extension to WCAG, which somebody designing a desktop/mouse site may look
into (again, going back to the fundamental problem of WCAG extension, but I
digress).

David: WCAG 2 is a stable document, entrenched in many jurisdictional laws,
which is a good thing. So far, unless something drastically changes in
consensus or in the charter approval, the extension model is what we are
looking at.

However, we may want to explore the idea of incorporating all these
recommendations into failure techniques or sufficient techniques for
*existing* Success Criteria in WCAG core, which would ensure they get first
class treatment in WCAG proper. This would ensure that they are not left
out of jurisdictions that didn't add the extension. But some of the
placement in existing Success Criteria could be pretty contrived. Most
would probably end up in 1.3.1 (like everything else).

I think it is worth weighing hard the pros and cons of rolling these into
WCAG core vs, adding Success Criteria and Guidelines in this extension.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

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

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, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> On 31/08/2015 02:18, Jonathan Avila wrote:
>
>> - on a more general level, I questioned why there should be an SC
>>> relating to target size for *touch*, but that there's no equivalent
>>> SC for mouse or stylus interaction?
>>>
>> [ja] My guess is that touch target size would need to be larger than
>> a mouse pointer touch area -- so the touch target would catch those
>> as well.
>>
>
> Sure, but this SC would be relegated into the "touch/mobile" extension to
> WCAG, which somebody designing a desktop/mouse site may look into (again,
> going back to the fundamental problem of WCAG extension, but I digress).
>
> Too small a target size can be just as problematic for users with
>>> tremors, mobility impairments, reduced dexterity, etc.
>>>
>> [ja] That's exactly who this SC is aimed at.  This SC is not
>> specifically aimed at screen reader users or low vision users but
>> people with motor impairments.
>>
>
> Apologies, when talking about tremors, mobility impairments, etc I meant
> to add "using a desktop/mouse or similar".
>
> I know it's not the remit of the TF, but I'd argue that this is
>>> exactly the sort of thing that would benefit from being a
>>> generalised SC applicable to all manner of pointing interaction
>>> (mouse, pen, touch, etc). Or is the expectation that there will be
>>> a separate TF for "pen and stylus TF", "mouse interaction TF",
>>> etc?
>>>
>> [jda] If you use a pen or stylus it's also touch -- so it's already
>> covered  This doesn't mean touch with a finger -- it means touch with
>> something -- a finger, a stylus, a prosthetic, a pen, etc..
>>
>
> Some devices treat pens essentially differently from touch (see for
> instance a Surface, and the fact that in Pointer Events for instance touch
> and pen are distinct input types). But is is dependent on
> hardware...Perhaps this needs clarifying.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>