W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Proposed mobile techniques for SC 3.2

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:09:20 -0500
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5E761CF7-77E9-483C-9E32-D5AB483728F4@raisingthefloor.org>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
keep going…..

what do you mean by break points 
how does (any but the most sophisticated author programmer) know when different breakpoints are reached
e.g. how do my students who have never programmed a web page before know how to do this? 
if the small size is good enough for the first break point — why isnt it large enough for the third.   
if they goal is just “as large as you can reasonably make them” then it shouldn’t be a requirement - but a recommendation (advisory) -  no? 
I  WCAG we made assumptions about some things. (e.g. if you had low vision - and needed very large text — you wouldn’t use something with a very small screen and expect the authors to be able to present content where only one or three words fit on the screen at a time…


not sure of the answer here but if we don’t have something as a stable rationale for the size—  and we don’t require a real size — then I think we are just recommending that things be as large as practical. 

hmmmmmm.      other thoughts anyone?  

gregg

----------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@raisingthefloor.org




> On Apr 28, 2015, at 2:01 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> If there were break points there could be different requirements for each one... so it could be x%, y%, z% based on the break point.
> 
> I actually like better the idea of having actual size minimums based on break points which was my second suggestions in that email.
> 
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>  
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> 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 Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Not sure I understand
> 
> How does a requirement for a percentage ensure that people with physical disabilities would be able to use something. 
> 
> and why should someone with a 24 inch touchscreen have to create content with buttons that were 20% of the screen  (monster buttons) when 20% of the width of an iPhone 4 screen would be very small buttons for someone with a physical disability. 
> 
> 
> Am I missing something? 
> 
> gregg
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 6:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> It possibly could be percentages?
>> 
>> Or 
>> 
>> we perhaps better, we could define several screen size ranges and base dimensions on those screen sizes.
>> -If a screen is between x by y size and W by Y dimensions then buttons size would need to be A and B and space between links would need to be
>> -If a screen is between W by X size  and dimensions then buttons size would need to be B and C... etc.
>>  
>> I think if we treat it like common responsive design break point ranges we could come up with common screen sizes (e.g. Small mobile, big mobile, tablet) and actually give some concrete advice for each of those sizes, which could be measurable and therefore a success criteria... I think if we are going to do something useful for authors and policy makers, we have to be more clear than the measurement of "adequate".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>  
>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>> Tel:  613.235.4902 <tel:613.235.4902>
>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>> 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 Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> wrote:
>> David,
>> I don’t see how they can ever be success criteria - since we would have to specify physical dimensions — and we don’t know the device size.   are you thinking we assume this is a tablet or something and base all recommendations on that?   With some set resolution?        Or do we assume that we can rescale content to force a physical size regardless of screen size and resolution? 
>> 
>> What are your thoughts? 
>> 
>> gregg
>> 
>> ----------------------------------
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:44 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It would be nice to choose wording that could eventually become a success criteria rather than techniques. The principles of enough space to click without hitting something else, and a big enough target  seem foundational. The word "adequate" is pretty subjective, I wonder if there is a range of measurements we can provide as were discussed at the face to face.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> David MacDonald
>>>  
>>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>>> Tel:  613.235.4902 <tel:613.235.4902>
>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>> 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 Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>>> 3.2 Touch Target Size and Spacing
>>> 
>>> Providing adequate touch target size / Ensuring that touch targets are large enough to touch accurately without magnification
>>> Provide adequate spacing between touch targets
>>> Questions:
>>> 
>>> 1)      Does each technique make sense to you?  (for now these are just titles, so it can be a challenge to be certain)
>>> 
>>> 2)      Do you agree that the referenced success criteria is applicable to each suggested technique, or that the technique is applicable to the SC)?
>>> 
>>> 3)      Do you think that there is another technique that this might better be an example for instead of a technique on its own?
>>> 
>>> 4)      Do you think that each is likely to be sufficient or advisory?
>>> 
>>> 5)      Are there other techniques that you can think of that address the SC in the mobile space?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> AWK
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>> 
>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>> 
>>> Adobe Systems
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpatrick@adobe.com>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility <http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility>
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 19:09:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:19 UTC