- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:36:48 -0500
- To: "kim@redstartsystems.com" <kim@redstartsystems.com>
- Cc: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDaLTp9qsZX0ZwiKG-thYoFZD8=_EeaxByVJixvyug0CRA@mail.gmail.com>
Late regrets... with wife at appointment... we're having a baby in 4 weeks... Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> 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 Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kim Patch <kim@redstartsystems.com> wrote: > MATF Minutes 28 January 2016 link: > https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html > > Text of minutes: > > Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 28 Jan 2016 > > See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-irc> > Attendees > Present Henny, Kathy, jeanne, Kim, Alistair, Jan, Marc Regrets Detlev, > alan Chair Kathleen_Wahlbin Scribe Kim > Contents > > - Topics > <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda> > 1. any other techniques or failures > <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item01> > - Summary of Action Items > <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary> > - Summary of Resolutions > <https://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary> > > ------------------------------ > > <agarrison> +present Alistair > > <Kathy> https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/#touch-and-pointer > > Kathy: working on touch and pointer extension. Looking at understanding – > careful with numbering because there some automatic numbering > ... also have people working on techniques and failures for these > ... I'm still writing the rest of the success criteria. Plan to write that > this weekend for some of the other ones so that next week we can review the > understanding for the other success criteria > ... the other place where we change things based on our conversations over > the last two weeks 2.4 touch target size 44 x 44 pixels at the default > pixel size. The other one that goes with that where we left off talking > last week is 2.5.5 touch target clearance – clearance of at least 48 pixels > except when user has reduced default scale of content. This one we were > talking about whether... > ... it's necessary given we are already specifying a touch target size. > Because if you have a touch target size of 44 do you need to be specifying > > Determining origin of 48 > > Kathy: do we need both? Wouldn't the center already be specified by > specifying touch target size > > Alistair: specify visible > > Jan: I agree > > <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets take up at least 48px x > 48px of the visible display except when the user has reduced the default > scale of content. (Level AA) > > Kathy: still need to figure out 44 or 48 > > <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets take up at least 44px x > 44px of the visible display except when the user has reduced the default > scale of content. (Level AA) > > Alistair: 44 > ... measure 44 x 44 doesn't necessarily mean it has to be visible > > <Jan> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets measure at least 44px x 44px > on the visible display except when the user has reduced the default scale > of content. (Level AA) > > Jan: unless we have something which says touch targets can overlap– do we > allow them to overlap, say small one on top of a large one and 44 x 44 > chunk of the large invisible off to the side. Is that a loophole we want to > prevent? > > Alistair: that should be fine as long as 44 x 44 is available > > Jan: has to be measured from the middle – if only a quarter is active and > it's the right size but > > Alistair: as long as it says 44 x 44 visible it doesn't matter that it's > from the center, just big enough to be able to hit with your finger > > Jan: center better? > > Alistair: that's venturing into usability > > Kathy: boils down to is there an accessibility issue if I have > overlapping touch targets if they're big enough > > Alistair: you obviously won't be able to see one very well – that's a bit > of accessibility issue but it's kind of usability no one's going to design > a site where you've got two buttons that will overlap each other > > Kathy: I saw a lot of canvas stuff yesterday and it had overlapping stuff > all over the place and never put it past people to do > ... failure right now under 2.5.5 touch targets overlapping > ... maybe that's not a actual failure that we want to look at, or maybe we > need to adjust > > Jan: if we said touch targets measure at least 44, and visual indicator > says something is a button or touch target > > Kathy: you measure 44 on the visual portion of the screen default > viewport size –is that enough. If you have two areas that are greater than > 44 by 44 but they overlap you still have 44 x 44 for each touch target > > Alistair: I'll touch targets need to be identifiable as touch targets > > Kathy: I think we've got that in a different section > > <Jan> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets have a radius of at least > 22px measured from the center of the visual indicator of the touch target, > except when the user has reduced the default scale of content. (Level AA) > > <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets have a radius of at least > 22px measured from the center of the visual indicator of the touch target > at default viewport size > > Alistair: radius implies round > > <Kathy> 2.5.4 Touch Target Size: Touch targets have a size of at least > 22px measured from the center of the visual indicator of the touch target > at default viewport size > > Jan: possible problem – imagine send button triangle on the screen. It's > touch target size is the right size, 44 x 44, but the icon that marks the > touch target is left justified in the touch target, so that most of his off > to the right so the user who tries to touch that arrow could end up missing > it if they are a little bit to the left > > Alistair: what about the central portion of the touch target has to > measure 44 x 44… > > Kathy: what do you think Henny > > <agarrison> The central portion of the touch target measures least 44px x > 44px of the visible display except when the user has reduced the default > scale of content. > > Henny: not sure > > <Kathy> 2.5.4 The central portion of the touch target measures least 44px > x 44px of the visible display at the default viewport size > > Alistair: if the visible display was 200 x 200 and this measures 44 it > doesn't necessarily glue the two together > > Kathy: we could write a failure for that situation though > > Jan: maybe a definition of touch target would help > > Kathy: definition of touch target would be good > > Jan: a touch target that's underneath another touch target so that it no > longer takes a touch is not a touch target, and that would rule out using > that as part of your measurement > > Kathy: is everyone happy with the language we have right now for 2.5.4? > > Jan: playing devils advocate – are people going to ask with the central > portion of the touch target is > > Kathy: definition of that too? > > <marcjohlic> +1 (couple of typos in what was put in IRC, but +1 w/ the > general idea) > > Marc: visual display versus visible make a difference? > > <jeanne> +1 visible > > <marcjohlic> CORRECTED: 2.5.4 The central portion of the touch target > measures at least 44px x 44px of the visible display at the default > viewport size > > <marcjohlic> +1 > > +1 > > <HennyS> +1 > > Alistair: still wondering about measures, what about consumes? > > Kathy: we can clarify in the understanding document > > <jeanne> +1 for measures, consumes adds a new confusion > > <jeanne> +1 "is" > > Marc: just leave out measures > > <jeanne> +1 for removing central portion > > Jan: put central portion in another SC > > <Jan> 2.5.4 The touch target measures at least 44px x 44px of the visible > display at the default viewport size. > > <marcjohlic> 2.5.4 The touch target is at least 44px x 44px of the > visible display at the default viewport size > > +1 > > Kathy: do we have to define visual display? > > Jan: does a touch target become not a touch target when it's offscreen? > ... you can imagine AT that can take a touch somewhere and position it > somewhere else > > Marc: developer tools for size? > > <Jan> Possible defn of Touch Target: Region of the display that will > accept a touch action. If a portion of a touch target is overlapped by > another touch target such that it cannot receive touch actions, then that > portion is not considered a touch target for purposes of touch target > measurements. > > Kathy: we are using pixels so we can specify in the CSS and specifying > default viewport size specifically because that is where you would measure > the 44 x 44 pixels and if default viewport size changes automatically > adjusts for that. A developer would be able to define 44 x 44 pixels – > makes it much easier. But the key there is that's default viewport size > > <agarrison> Should it be "A touch target" rather than "The touch target" > > Kathy: we have display equals device with which is your standard default > viewport size. As lie as you have that set the 44 x 44 pixels works > > <marcjohlic> 2.5.4: A touch target is at least 44px x 44px of the visible > display at the default viewport size > > Discussing visible display > > <Kathy> +1 > > <marcjohlic> +1 > > <jeanne> +1 > > <HennyS> +1 > > +1 > > <Jan> +1 > > <Kathy> Touch Target: Region of the display that will accept a touch > action. If a portion of a touch target is overlapped by another touch > target such that it cannot receive touch actions, then that portion is not > considered a touch target for purposes of touch target measurements. > > Jan: probably also requires a definition of touch action > > Alistair: can we say designed to trigger a touch event > > Jan: designed, that's the computational side – but from the user side > they are taking an action > > Kathy: I don't know – what do others think > ... designed to trigger a touch event versus will accept a touch action > > Alistair: touch action better, event could fire a keyboard event too > > Kathy: is a pretty good with Jan's original language? > > General agreement > > <Kathy> 2.5.5 Touch Target Clearance: The center of each touch target has > a distance of at least 44 pixels from the center of any other touch target, > except when the user has reduced the default scale of content. (Level AA) > > Kathy: proposal to remove touch target clearance – do you agree with > removal of 2.5.5 right now as we have it in the document > > <Kathy> +1 > > <Jan> +1 > > <agarrison> Remove +1 > > <HennyS> +1 > > <marcjohlic> +1 to remove > > +1 remove > > <jeanne> +1 > > <Kathy> M022 Spacing between elements. Mxxx Failure: touch targets > overlapping > > Kathy: right now we have a technique for spacing between elements and we > have a failure touch target overlapping. Should those move to the previous > requirement? > ... do we need those or should they be removed? > > Jan: if they're large and overlap slightly that doesn't seem like a > problem > > Kathy: 2.5.4 failure would be if touch target is less than 44 x 44 pixels > of the visible display, so if you had to touch targets that overlapped and > it wasn't a 44 x 44 measurement > > Jan: maybe touch targets overlapping such that one of them becomes less > and 44 x 44 > > <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch targets overlapping such that the touch > target is less than 44px x 44px > > Alistair: negative version of what we just added to the guidelines – > don't necessarily need > > Kathy: if we put that in is a failure it would help clarify when > something of this nature is actually a failure > > <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch target is less than 44px x 44px > > <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch target is less than 44px x 44px at the > default viewport size > > Jan: clarity around this is in the glossary which is okay, but it helps > also to have two failures > ... comes down to the size – one you have one by itself and it's not the > right size. The second is failed because overlap > > Alistair: more than 44 pixels on the screen passes, doesn't matter if > it's overlapped > ... just wondering whether we need to have the failure that says if you > have two buttons overlapping and you take one below a certain size – > because you would've automatically failed anyway > > <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch target is less than 44px x 44px at the > default viewport size > > <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch targets overlapping such that the touch > target is less than 44px x 44px > > Kathy: these are the two failures for 2.5.4 > > Alistair first and second one are pretty much the same – if you fail the > second one you failed the first one > > Kathy: we want to clarify that if overlap touch sizes no longer 44 by 44 > it's just clarity for developers > > <Kathy> Mxxx Failure: touch targets overlapping such that the visible > touch target is less than 44px x 44px > > Alastair: just write up a negative version of the success criteria? > > Kathy: there are two scenarios one looking at one touch target and the > other looking at two that are overlapping or adjacent > > <agarrison> Failure: A touch target is less than 44px x 44px of the > visible display at the default viewport size > > Kathy: Alistair suggesting combining two failures – thoughts > > Jan: two failures very clear > > Kathy: WCAG already difficult for some developers to understand – anytime > we can add clarity it's better. > any other techniques or failures > > Kathy: are there any other techniques or failures you think we should add? > ... thoughts on A or AA for 2.5.4 > ... listed as AA should it be single A? > > <jeanne> +1 to AA > > Alistair: consider it on the list? > > Kathy: we will send out a note to the list for feedback on that > > <Jan> Jan: AA > > Kathy: we will leave it at AA for now > ... we only have one left 2.5.6 device manipulation, we will pick that up > next week. Jon also put failure technique out there. I'd like us to review > it on the list. If you have time please read that over and comment on it if > you've got any changes so that we can also finalize that a next week's call > Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] > ------------------------------ > Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl > <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> > version 1.144 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>) > $Date: 2016/01/28 17:03:12 $ > >
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:37:20 UTC