- From: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:19:18 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Thanks Patrick. That is great, I am glad you documented these. Kathy CEO & Founder Interactive Accessibility T (978) 443-0798 F (978) 560-1251 C (978) 760-0682 E kathyw@ia11y.com www.InteractiveAccessibility.com NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:28 PM To: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org Subject: Re: MATF Minutes 26 May 2016 On 26/05/2016 17:11, Kim Patch wrote: > Kathy: are there scenarios right now that if something is keyboard > accessible it doesn't have a touch equivalent Yes, I've ranted about this before (because of course I rant): "Comment on WAI-ARIA Practices 1.1 - emphasis on keyboard interactions, which don't translate to touch devices" https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2015AprJun/0005.html And more generally, WCAG has a keyboard bias, as already discussed on list here (and some rantings here https://twitter.com/patrick_h_lauke/status/602414144583761920) This led to this addition to the editor's draft of "ARIA in HTML" https://w3c.github.io/aria-in-html/#aria-touch which then references some fairly high-level quick and dirty exploration of ARIA patterns that, because of their intrinsic assumption of "there's always a keyboard" break on touch devices https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gN9oRZPdrJxLDNtT6nVO4fn7E7sn1061L9Xl3__slZ4/edit#gid=0 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
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2016 18:19:44 UTC