- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:27:49 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- CC: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Note that I'm chair of that group, as well as a co-editor of the spec... ;) Ah, oops! I had a vague feeling you were involved but didn’t see your name on it, so to speak. Anyway, it supports the point that the W3C specs should align, and WCAG needs to catch up on this one. > My one concern with calling touch+AT "keyboard-equivalent" is that this > scenario does not fire any actual "faked" keypresses, so technically not > quite accurate. Then again, maybe this can be addressed in the glossary > definition and handwaved/papered over, as it's really the end result > (that it moves the accessibility focus/caret around) that matters here. Personally I think equating it to keyboard equivalent and focusing on the higher level robust events makes sense and is the easy method to communicate. It would fit into the training I give fairly easily, for example. But open to other suggestions. Cheers, -Alastair
Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 10:28:21 UTC