- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:41:05 +0000
- To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathyw@ia11y.com>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
On 07/11/2016 12:23, Kathy Wahlbin wrote: > I agree that we should include a note for the working group. Patrick - can you add that in Github? Done. I've also tried to include the desktop/role="application" scenario, as discussed in the call last week. Updated changes: https://github.com/chriscm2006/Mobile-A11y-Extension/blob/m14/SCs/m14.md P > -----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 > -- 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, 10 November 2016 09:41:32 UTC