- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:05:39 -0400
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- CC: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP82688B6352714094BE5E6EFE6B0@phx.gbl>
A couple of word smiths on it: 2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: Single touch and/or pointer activation is triggered on the up-event, or has at least one of the following is true (Level A): - Confirmation is provided which can dismiss activation; or - Activation is reversible; or - A mechanism is available to allow the user to trigger activation on the up-event; or - Timing of activation is essential; waiting for the up-event would invalidate the activity. Note: This is when platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures is not turned on. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:44 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > wording) for situations where a down-activation is ok (on-screen piano, > space shooter, etc, where a mistaken activation is not that > dramatic/problematic, > > I've added an exception based on the wording of 2.2.1. And added language > to the understanding. > > >>>I'm not completely sure that wording (which includes "Up-Event") is > completely appropriate, as it already hints at the technical solution, > rather than describing the more generic problem it's trying to avoid (i.e. > the "Avoid that users accidentally activate functionality..." aspect) > > The success criteria have to be testable statements. I don't think > "up-event" is technology specific. I think it's understandable and crosses > most technologies. I'm nervous about adding a layer of abstraction. We did > that with an earlier draft, and it was confusing... > > The Guideline level is where we deal with generalities. This is under a > new proposed guideline: > > Guideline 2.5: Touch and Pointer: Make it easier for users to operate > touch and pointer functionality. > > The new language is: > > 2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: Single touch and/or pointer activation is > triggered on the up-event, or has at least one of the following is true > (Level A): > > 1. confirmation is provided which can dismiss activation; or > 2. the action is reversible; or > 3. a mechanism is available to allow the user to trigger activation on > the up-event; or > 4. timing of the event is essential and waiting for the up-event would > invalidate the activity. > > Note: This is when platform assistive technology that remaps touch > gestures is *not *turned on. > > I've also updated the Understanding Doc. > > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.3 > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jonathan Avila < > jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: > >> > wording) for situations where a down-activation is ok (on-screen piano, >> space shooter, etc, where a mistaken activation is not that >> dramatic/problematic, >> >> I agree as well and this was something I had commented in the past an >> recently -- we need an exception for when down press without reversal is >> essential to the activity such as playing a piano. We should model it >> similar to those found for SC 2.2.1 Timing. >> >> Jonathan >> >> Jonathan Avila >> Chief Accessibility Officer >> SSB BART Group >> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com >> 703.637.8957 (Office) >> >> Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog >> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:46 AM >> To: David MacDonald >> Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Comments on proposed new SC 2.5.3 >> >> >> >> On 18/04/2016 03:56, David MacDonald wrote: >> > One slight problem of asynchronous collaboration is that a few hours >> > after Detlev's comments we had the weekly call and worked for a hour >> > on it ... It is no longer tied to touch, and addresses, I believe in a >> > fairly elegant way, all the concerns to date... >> > >> > 2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: Single touch and/or pointer activation >> > triggers on the up-event, or has at least one of the following >> > characteristics (Level A): >> > - provides confirmation, >> > - is reversible, >> > - a mechanism is available to trigger on the up-event. >> > >> > Note: This is when platform assistive technology that remaps touch >> > gestures is not turned on. >> >> I'm not completely sure that wording (which includes "Up-Event") is >> completely appropriate, as it already hints at the technical solution, >> rather than describing the more generic problem it's trying to avoid (i.e. >> the "Avoid that users accidentally activate functionality..." aspect) >> >> Also, the wording there doesn't include exemption (in the normative SC >> wording) for situations where a down-activation is ok (on-screen piano, >> space shooter, etc, where a mistaken activation is not that >> dramatic/problematic, and the responsiveness of firing on down is essential >> to the control itself) >> >> However, I agree this proposed new wording is already much better than >> the one I initially commented on/reacted to :) >> >> P >> >> > Also have revised the understanding document and provided some >> > alternative language for the SC. >> > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5 >> > .3 >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Patrick H. Lauke >> > <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 14/04/2016 15:53, Detlev Fischer wrote: >> > >> > Just taking a minute to think about 2.5.3 >> > >> > Echoing Patrick's advice that we should not focus on touch if >> the >> > issue is more general, it seems fairly obvious that "2.5.3 >> Touch Up >> > Activation" or "2.5.3 Single Taps and Long Presses Revocable" >> > describes an issue that is equally valid for mouse pointer >> > activation. >> > >> > Which suggests we might draw the boundary wider and rename it to >> > something like SC 2.5.3 "Support undo" >> > >> > Which contradicts the renaming I have suggested in the last >> telco. >> > "Touch Up Activation" sounds easier (which is a benefit), but >> > narrowing the issue to touch seems inappropriate for a SC - it >> would >> > be OK on the level of Technique. >> > >> > So itf we try to tackle the general issue of supporting undo by >> not >> > triggering things on touchstart / mouseDown, the question >> remains >> > wehther it is really inside scope for WCAG. >> > >> > >> > Going back even further, rather than "undo" was the original issue, >> > fundamentally, about "Avoid that users accidentally activate >> > controls and/or have a way to 'bail out'"? (which won't win any >> > terseness awards, but thought I'd throw the lot in there). >> > >> > So the normative part can, in a tech agnostic way, hopefully convey >> > this idea (which is just as applicable to keyboard, switch, mouse, >> > touch, voice activation, etc users) that an app/site should be built >> > in a way that a user doesn't accidentally click on things they >> > didn't intend to, and that if they already started a click >> > activation (e.g. touch down, mouse button already pressed down, >> > etc) they either have a way of cancelling this activation (by moving >> > their finger or mouse while still pressed outside/sufficiently away >> > from the control before lifting their finger/releasing the mouse >> > button), OR by providing some way of undo-ing/reverting the action - >> > IF the action is "of consequence" (e.g. if it was a touchscreen >> > piano, or the fire button of a real-time [rather than turn >> > based/tactical] space shooter, it's no big deal if it activated by >> > accident, and an undo would not be practical/possible). >> > >> > Then, in techniques, it can go further into tech specific "bind >> > event listeners to both touchend / the "up" AND the generic "click" >> > / activation; for mouse, don't listen to "mouseover" but "mouseup" >> > AND "click"; etc. >> > >> > P >> > -- >> > Patrick H. Lauke >> > >> > www.splintered.co.uk <http://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 >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> 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 Monday, 18 April 2016 20:06:11 UTC