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

>I’m struggling to understand where the proposal [1] doesn’t do this, at
least in principle.

>Slightly updated with ‘including’:

>“All functionality of the content is operable through accessibility
supported non-pointer input interfaces (*including* keyboards), without
requiring specific timings for individual interactions, ​except…”

This is my amendment, the proposal currently says "(such as Keyboards)".
This would be my minimum starting point to get back on the fence.... but I
have so many other concerns currently, given the loss of 2.5.1 that I just
can't see an elegant way to get comfortable without something like the two
notes that were also in my amendment.

=NOTE: All functionality is still required to work with a keyboard as per WCAG 2
=NOTE: All functions available by touch are still available by touch
after platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures is
turned on.

But the second note is a huge new requirement. It is 2.5.1 and the SC
currently doesn't say what is in the note.



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 Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 15/07/2016 16:56, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> My reading is basically: Make sure you can do everything without a
>> mouse, including using a keyboard. This seems good, minor point about
>> the term “non-pointer input” aside.
>>
>> I don’t think it does impact the new 2.5.1, as that is tackling a
>> different issue. (That of a touch interface changing with the AT applied.)
>>
>> Working to the new 2.1 should make 2.5.1 easier to meet, but there are
>> issues (e.g. relying on touch-swiping) that are not covered by the
>> current or proposed 2.1.
>>
>
> David is correct that my proposed 2.1 changes would cover what's currently
> 2.5.1
>
> If you have functionality implemented through swiping, it needs to also
> work for non-pointer users (keyboard, touch interface when AT applied). So
> the concepts touched (hah) on in 2.5.1 actually come back to "it needs to
> work in touch+AT as well". Since the interface (to pass WCAG) that uses
> swipes/gestures already today also needs to work with keyboard anyway, my
> proposed 2.1 changes avoid having to use 2.5.1 (as if 2.1 is expanded to
> include touch+AT, then it serves the same purpose as 2.5.1)
>
> An example might help, let’s take an image slider/carousel that lets you
>> move through a set of images. (Patrick, you might need to correct the
>> details, but I think the premise is valid?)
>>
>> For the next / previous functionality you could fail on all counts by
>> using mouse-specific events attached to the left/right sides for
>> previous/next, and swipe detection (touchstart, touchmove, touchend).
>> This fails 2.1 current and proposed, and 2.5.1 I believe (because swipe
>> is used for navigating with AT).
>>
>> You could pass current 2.1 by adding keyboard events, but fail 2.1
>> proposed, and fail 2.5.1.
>>
>>
>>
>> You could pass current and proposed 2.1 by using keyboard and mouse
>> event-handlers, but if a touch interface relies on detecting swipes that
>> would still fail 2.5.1.
>>
>
> No if the touch interface relied on detecting swipes, it would fail
> proposed 2.1 since it can't be operated using all non-pointer interfaces
> (adding keyboard events would allow traditional keyboard controls, but
> wouldn't do anything for touch+AT scenario)
>
> Circling back to all the good work in 2.5.1 - ASSUMING that we do still
> want to explore how 2.1 could be made more holistic, all the wording and
> examples produced for 2.5.1 can/should be added to the relevant parts of
> 2.1 (so the examples about how AT remaps gestures etc would be relevant in
> explaining the proposed input-agnostic 2.1)
>
>
> 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
>
>
>