Re: Perhaps we can follow the LVTF and close a few of our proposals

On 09/12/2016 12:54, David MacDonald wrote:
> My desire is not  for us to spill a lot of ink and time over a vetting
> process but rather to see where we'd all be reasonably agreeable to drop
> some of the less mature ones that will require a ton of work and will
> likely get lots of push back at the group level and from outside
> stakeholders. The earlier we weed, the better, I'd say.
>
>
> - Issue 61 Pointer Gestures
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/61
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/61>
>
> Ok, let's leave it for the larger group. I wrote a blog early this year
> asking users if WCAG.NEXT should require everything to work with mouse
> (Pointer)
> http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/should-WCAG-require-all-functionality-by-mouse.html
> I got no feedback to include the mouse requirement in WCAG next and
> assumed not many people feel strongly about it. But maybe there are
> other reasons no one said "yes, let's do this".

You seem to forget that "pointer" includes touch, mouse, stylus. It's 
not just mouse.

> Regarding
> Issue 62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/62
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/62>
>
> SC 2.1.1 requires content to work with keyboard. Conformance Requirement
> 4 requires that only accessibility supported ways of using technologies
> are used. So, if keyboard accessibility breaks when a Screen Reader
> (that is relied upon for conformance) is running, then the content fails
> Conformance Requirement 4. I feel this reasonably covers this use case
> at a WCAG 2.1 level. What is not covered currently, that this covers?

The fact that this interpretation is not made clear anywhere, and 
requires tea-leaf-reading of WCAG?

> - Issue 72 Non- Interference of AT
> Sounds like there is reasonable unity in closing it.
>
> - Issue 64 Concurrent Input Mechanisms
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/64
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/64>
>
> Sounds like fairly good unity in closing it.

Before we declare "unity" it would be good to get an explicit yes/no 
from the rest of the TF I'd say?

P
-- 
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 Friday, 9 December 2016 13:00:06 UTC