MATF Minutes 14 December 2017

*MATF Minutes 14 December, 2017 link: 
https://www.w3.org/2017/12/14-mobile-a11y-minutes.html
*


  Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference


    14 Dec 2017


    Attendees

Present
    Kim, Kathy, Detlev, Melanie
Regrets
Chair
    Kathy
Scribe
    kim


    Contents

  * Topics <https://www.w3.org/2017/12/14-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
     1. 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation
        <https://www.w3.org/2017/12/14-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item01>
     2. 2.5.3 Target Size (No understanding in linked document)
        <https://www.w3.org/2017/12/14-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item02>
  * Summary of Action Items
    <https://www.w3.org/2017/12/14-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
  * Summary of Resolutions
    <https://www.w3.org/2017/12/14-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Kathy> 2. zakim, this will be 6283

<Kathy> meeting: Mobile A11Y TF

Kathy: going over changes to success criteria and understanding document

Detlev: understanding for 2.6 but too late to be included in the draft – 
there is text in the respective github branch
... some feedback (Joanne Taylor)
... replied interesting point but we should just cover motion actuation 
rather than splitting it
... I think the use cases are pretty close, techniques would be that 
different. There's a good case of keeping it simple. I've drafted the 
responses.

Kathy: Suzanne is doing gaming development just to give you perspective 
about where her comments are coming from

Detlev: good points but they could be covered by a separate success 
criteria.

Kathy: in 2.2 or silver. it's important to capture that
... looking at all the changes – there were days and days of multihour 
meetings and a lot of it came together quickly in order to get this into 
this current draft. There were a lot of changes to quite a few of the 
different success criteria.
... in reviewing all of these one of the things that I think got lost 
and we might want to revisit is the whole 3D touch aspect
... to recap where we are in what happened with some of these the major 
changes happened to the ones that Kim listed in the meeting agenda:

2.5.1 Pointer Gestures (No understanding in linked document) 2.5.2 
Pointer Cancellation 2.5.3 Target Size (No understanding in linked 
document) 2.5.5 Concurrent Input Mechanisms (No understanding in linked 
document) 2.6.1 Motion Activation

TOPIC 2.5.1 pointer gestures

the understanding for this one really needs to have a lot of things 
included so this can be understood but now it is multi-points or task 
based gestures

Detlev: not linked to understanding – there is a draft
... comments – want to emulate long presses. I've change that – 
single-point activation seems more precise but I'm not sure

Kathy: glossary single pointer definition one point of contact from the 
screen

Detlev: that would not cover double-click. Maybe concern partly 
alleviated already – split between web authored gestures and other 
gestures from user agent or operating system – some concern that this 
would be too restrictive
... I'm not quite sure if this can live the way it is or we need an 
exception
... to cover multipoint gestures, taps
... I sent this to the list to discuss but I think there's too much 
happening

Kathy: putting together a list of everything that we need to talk about 
– this needs to be part of that
... I'll make sure that that gets in

Detlev: I'm not sure whether the examples are sufficiently complete to 
cover the different complex gestures – there could be more work to be 
done on that


      2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation

Kathy: this is allowing you to do drag-and-drop because the final 
completion of the function is on the up event

Detev: this is easy to misunderstand – the moment you put your finger on 
the thing and drag it you can see the other box highlighted and tells 
you where to move it – you can undo it but you would already execute the 
part of the function, the highlightI don't know whether that counts is 
changing, but it could be seen as to restricted

Kathy: this always trips me up it says at least one is true so you don't 
need all four of them
... the other two are up event reverses and completing the event on the 
down event – if any one of thoseour true
... understanding needs more

Detlev: might be interesting to see the BBC requirement

Kathy: we did go back to that at TPAC – might be good to look again
... Melanie if that's something you would be willing to do, that would 
help. In the minutes from that marathon of because it would be good to 
capture what was said about this one – there was a lot of talk on 
drag-and-drop, abort, undo. That needs to be incorporated into the 
understanding document. If we had that in one place that would be easier.

Melanie: will pull those out and put them in a doc


      2.5.3 Target Size (No understanding in linked document)

Kathy: main change is AA we changed the size. By having a 44 x 44 it was 
breaking too many different scenarios. Many varying opinions on this 
one. Push it through by saying we know it's an issue in many areas, 
menus, blocks of text even within form fields. So 44 x 22 and block of 
text exclusion so there's a big out.
... it does mean that things like different menu links do need to have 
444 x 2222

Detlev: usability argument against making this requirement
... not sure that it's best in all situations in all cases

Kathy: I think there's a lot of trade-offs that we make every day in a 
lot of different things. Trying to balance. If we can get some 22 x 44 
it's going to help. If there are other cases where it can't be done 
that's fair. And then AAA 44 x 44 except in line targets

Detlev: it needs to be tried out whether it's feasible or not. It 
certainly feasible if you have different views

Kathy: Microsoft is already solved it – when you hover over there 
buttons they pop it out and make that button that has focus – the target 
size bigger

Detlev: would it needed differentiation in terms of focus

Kathy: I'll make a note now that we need to add that to understanding

Melanie: one of the questions we wrestle with is doing make a success 
criteria that puts it on content authors when user agent is the best 
place for
... example when I touch it the browser will blow up that area so I have 
a better chance of hitting it – I've never figured out how my phone 
knows to do that or when it doesn't because it's not consistent but is 
something that thinking ahead

Kathy: exception bullet number three is that scenario
... if the user has locked in the size it is excluded

Detlev: operating system controls like zoom – if you turn that on, 
triple tap on the screen then move around everything is bigger but you 
have to pan the screen to get to your target – you can always use 
browser zoom or built-in operating zoom to increase target size – that's 
a different issue

Kathy: to a certain extent you have the same thing with zooming to 200% 
and that success criteria. There are certain scenarios where that is a 
problem but it is for the user agent

Detlev: target size discussion – user agent or operating system way 
would already be sufficient? That would make it be easily met. Authors 
wouldn't have to do anything. Just to understand this user agent control 
exception – was that a point of discussion

Kathy: discussion the week after Thanksgiving. If you just change the 
color have you really changed. The problem is if you modify the target 
size you will prevent certain functions from working. So if you walk in 
the target size
... if you lock in the different controls
... the conversations have gone from what is the change that is going to 
matter to what can we say is going to be kind of a native where you 
haven't modified – I don't care about the colors, just the size of the 
target
... time for the other call – if you can take aa look at concurrent 
input mechanisms and motion activation and let us know if there any 
concerns about those


    Summary of Action Items


    Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
version 1.152 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2017/12/14 16:37:55 $

___________________________________________________

Kimberly Patch
President
Redstart Systems
(617) 325-3966
kim@redstartsystems.com <mailto:kim@redstartsystems.com>

www.redstartsystems.com <http://www.redstartsystems.com>
- making speech fly

www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________