RE: Is our non-interference proposal already covered in WCAG COnformance Requirement 5

I agree that we should include a note for the working group.  Patrick - can you add that in Github?

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 10:26 AM
To: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is our non-interference proposal already covered in WCAG COnformance Requirement 5

On 05/11/2016 10:15, David MacDonald wrote:
> I've been looking at the non-interference  proposal,
>
> https://github.com/chriscm2006/Mobile-A11y-Extension/blob/d9ecc74431ee

> 5bef084b51256468838b1d9a773a/SCs/m14.md
> <https://github.com/chriscm2006/Mobile-A11y-Extension/blob/d9ecc74431e

> e5bef084b51256468838b1d9a773a/SCs/m14.md>
>
> it appears we may cover this in WCAG 2 in the conformance requirements.
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#cc5 <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#cc5>

For the touch scenario (where a native app can completely override Touch AT's gesture recognition), this is arguably covered by

"If technologies are used in a way that is not accessibility supported, or if they are used in a non-conforming way, then they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page."

However, it's not clearly called out, and ensuring that (particularly
touch) AT isn't blocked/circumvented is not explicitly covered in the list of SCs that still need to apply to all page content (1.4.2, 2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.2.2).

I'm wondering if we should add this concern (that we think the SC we're proposing *may* already be covered by this clause 5) to our description of the SC as a note to the working group. Having said all that, not having an SC and instead having the concern addressed by wording that's admittedly buried a bit is not ideal...I know many developers who will simply go through the list of actual SCs and never bother to read the additional stuff...

P

> I'm trying to think of a scenario of something not covered in our 
> current WCAG Conformance Requirement of non-interence that would be 
> covered in our proposal ... I don't have one yet.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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>


--
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 Monday, 7 November 2016 12:23:31 UTC