Re: Proposal: expanding/modifying Guideline 2.1 and its SCs (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3) to cover Touch+AT

Here's Patrick's proposal
​"​
All functionality of the content is operable through accessibility
supported non-pointer input interfaces (such as keyboards), without
requiring specific timings for individual interactions,
​except ​
​...
. (Level A)
​"​
​
I've taken the liberty of running this by a lawyer​ with low vision to whom
I taught assistive technology when he drafted legislation for the Canadian
Government.  His paraphrased comments are as follows:

- The SC does not *require* the use of keyboards with this language. The
bracketed phrase (such as keyboards) shows that it is important to us, but
it is an example, not a requirement
- It does not say "... *all* accessibility supported non-pointer input
interfaces", so any subset of "all" would sufficiently meet this SC, and
this subset could exclude keyboard
- It does not require it to work with pointer events, because it doesn't
say "all accessibility supported AT". So some subset of "all" may not
include pointer events, so it does not accomplish that either.
- It doesn't need to work with the screen reader turned on because it
doesn't say "all ..."
- Making the phrase "...ALL accessibility supported AT..." would throw a
very wide net, requiring it to work with any new AT regardless of its
market uptake, so that is not a solution either.
- If you want to require keyboard, you have to say so specifically or
include it as an integral part of a definition of "non-pointer event" (not
just as part of a non-binding list)

In our 2.5.1
​mobile proposal which this attempts to replace, ​
we qualified the
​scope of the ​
AT by saying "platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures"
​. Maybe that would work in here. I don't know. But unless we can solve
these issues, I think we need to stick with our mobile 2.5.1 ​separate from
2.1.1.








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 Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> Hi Patrick
>
>
> Sorry,  because you added it to this conversation thread where we were
> trying to resolve the question —  I thought that it related to the
> question.
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2016 06:25, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> Yes all of this is not surprising at all.
>
> I don’t know what it has to do with the topic at hand however. It
> doesn’t change the discussion or arguments or importance of the keyboard
> access provision. Nor does it change the fact that any other device
> independent commands should be a separate success criteria.
>
>
> And nowhere did I claim that it did change the discussion or argument. I'm
> simply adding information here in this thread, mainly to provide additional
> data points to reinforce my point about this not being just an issue
> pertaining purely to touchscreen+AT, but that there are other input
> mechanisms that are not mouse/pointer based but also not "keyboard" in the
> "sends keystrokes" sense that is currently defined in WCAG 2.0
>
> Any really advanced technology will be programmed to interact directly
> with the content in the most efficient way that it can.
> Screen readers are another example where the access is direct it does
> not go through  the keyboard interface.
>
> This does not have anything to do with other types of ATV which function
> only through the keyboard interface. For example a sip and puff interface.
>
>
> And I didn't claim it did. But thanks for jumping back into the discussion.
>
> The keyboard interface provision is not there because it is the only way
> anything controls things. Is there because it is the only way some
> things can have access to the content.
>
> ciao
>
> /gregg/
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>