MATF Minutes 7 July 2016

*MATF Minutes 7 July 2016 link: 
*https://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-mobile-a11y-minutes.html

*Text of minutes:*


  Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference


    07 Jul 2016

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-mobile-a11y-irc>


    Attendees

Present
    DavidMacDonald, Kim, Kathy, Chris, Patrick
Regrets
    Shadi, Alan, Mark, Henny, Jeanne
Chair
    Kathy
Scribe
    Kim


    Contents

  * Topics <https://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
  * Summary of Action Items
    <https://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  * Summary of Resolutions
    <https://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

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

<Kathy> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 07 July 2016

Kathy: We are going to briefly discuss what we can change, then end call 
early
... we can't change the SC, but we can change the definition or the 
understanding
... start thinking about two-stage approach. Can we change definition 
under 2.1 now without changing the success criteria language, or do we 
need something patched in now and go down that direction for 3.0
... that's what we need to look at overall for 2.1 and 3.0

Patrick: interchange with Greg and link -- my whole point initially was 
a wanted to get this discussed within our task force first so we can 
iron out some of these things before. Uphill struggle to get folks to 
understand

Kathy: we might want to just bring this overall to the working group 
regardless but I think we should have several different options. I posed 
the question -- they said we could change the definition but the success 
criteria couldn't change until 3.0

Patrick: that's a very limiting approach particularly because the change 
I propose doesn't go against what it currently says -- not that things 
that were not accessible in 2.0 will now become accessible but rather 
the opposite that certain approaches that were valid under 2.0 but don't 
work for touch -- so making it harder to satisfy amended criteria. But I 
get the point that if we are...
... taking...
... the current language as being immutable we could probably look at 
redefining what keyboard interface actually means though it will in my 
view make it look more awkward, particularly in the light of WCAG 
already being criticized for using obscure language. It can be done we 
can say keyboard interface actually includes. It just adds a layer of 
indirection which may not be completely...
... obvious. We can add to understanding to stress that point. On the 
very first reading it will always still look like why is touch with AT a 
keyboard interface

Kathy: I think overall we need to bring this to the working group. So 
we'll have a discussion in the task force and probably that will happen 
next week, because not very many people on the call right now. If you 
can look at the definition and see if you can change the definition by 
keeping the success criteria language the way it is and see if we could 
go in -- timeline is so short we...
... have to have all this wrapped up we can't spend too much time going 
back and forth. If we have multiple options for the working group and we 
can get them to tell us what we can and can't do and just move forward 
and get things defined within the limits their setting for us...

Patrick: I agree with that. I will take a look at last comments and see 
if there's a way I can salvage the work that I put in this -- change 
definition etc. the main point that needs to be addressed is basically 
touch +AT. It uses gestures but it's the ATthat interprets them.Then we 
can move onto as an author if you do your own gesture detection, how to 
make sure that still works for...
... users that are using touch interface but might have mobility issues, 
not necessarily touch +AT but broad touch itself. And then the advanced 
touch which is using stylus that also has tilt and rotation and 
everything else -- the fancy touch that we talked about..
... once we've sorted the touch plus AT scenario we can move on other 
input modalities that arise from having touch and stylus...

Kathy: encourage everyone to read through the thread. We'll discuss next 
week

David: the idea of expanding it doesn't bother me. My only concern is it 
seems to me that it can be construed that the keyboard requirements are 
less that so another words every test that I do over the last eight 
years but still have to be done, and that would still fail people on 
keyboard accessibility. I love the idea of unifying and expanding, as 
long as we don't lose what we've had in...
... terms of functional understanding of keyboard accessibility

Patrick: everything that previously failed would still fail. But not 
everything that passed previously would still pass. Things such as if 
you used keyboard specific input handlers such as onkeypress or 
onkeydown, it would pass under 2.0 it would not pass in the stricter 
definition -- so it is actually a strengthening in my eyes of this 
particular requirement. Maybe too much the opposite...
... way perhaps.

David: I know this is a problem with iOS but technically mobile will not 
pass if it can be keyboard operated. I guess as long as we're not losing 
that in the wording reflects that. User who may be able to help us, 
lawyer who went blind, government regulation. Language that isn't too 
broad or too narrow

Patrick: duplicate a lot of language -- compromise, though. 3.0 unify 
the idea
... option one, option two let's tweak it slightly, option three let's 
duplicate it, but that's not our preferred position. We can send and say 
this will be our preferred, least preferred but we can live with and see 
how it goes
... I think we can get somewhere with this -- an agreement that the 
thinking behind it is fine now it's just finding the right form for 
everyone. I think we can get somewhere anyway. I'll keep working on that 
this week. May have additional thoughts and ideas by the next call, will 
put in the wiki


    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: 2016/07/07 16:12:51 $


___________________________________________________

Kimberly Patch
President
Redstart Systems
(617) 325-3966
kim@redstartsystems.com <mailto:kim@redstartsystems.com>

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

@RedstartSystems
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________