- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:30:47 +0000
- To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> So let's not get sidetracked, as that also doesn't help for swift discussions ;) I disagree -- the exceptions are relevant to the discussion and I rather discuss those now without rushing into something that we later have to scrap because something was rammed through. As mentioned by others before -- the placement of the success criteria was one of the latter things done in WCAG 2 and the criteria should be built out first before finding the perfect place for it. While the MATF is discussing this topic I'd like to hear Gregg's thoughts as ultimately this discussion will be blessed or not in the broader working group. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:16 PM To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org Subject: Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) For reference: this discussion was started not because of the actual SC (which is in the works at the Mobile TF, and yes exceptions are already being looked at - see https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/ new SC 3.4.1). What I *did* want to bring up was the idea of Principle 4 - Robust being a better place for it https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/2 So let's not get sidetracked, as that also doesn't help for swift discussions ;) P On 29/06/2016 18:09, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > ah - and this is always what tripped us up in WCAG 2 > > we have a good idea - but then think of times it should not apply. We > can just list those as exceptions because we Can’t think of them all. > > So we stare at them and try to see if there is some common pattern or > some common characteristic that is the reason for those exceptions. If > all we can come up with is that it should apply except when it > shouldn’t for some good reason… Then we know we can’t do in SC that is > testable since “good” isn’t testable. > > unghhhh. We literally spent years trying to figure out how to get all > of the good ideas that came up into some form that would qualify as an > SC. Often we only could do part of what we wanted. > > Anybody see the magic pattern for the exceptions here? > > /gregg/ > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Jonathan Avila >> <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote: >> >> Ø Ok — so you are thinking of an SC that requires pages to be >> viewable without requiring the user to rotate their screens in on >> format or another? >> >> Yes, but I think we need to carefully allow for some exceptions. For >> example, I believe there could be some needs such as taking pictures >> of checks for mobile deposit that may work better in landscape mode >> give the distance of the camera from the check, etc. Some games that >> scroll horizontally in landscape mode would then require two sets of >> scrollbars in portrait mode which might make the game unplayable, etc. >> >> Jonathan >> >> Jonathan Avila >> Chief Accessibility Officer >> SSB BART Group >> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> >> 703.637.8957 (Office) >> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter >> <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook >> <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog >> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> >> >> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! >> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/> >> >> >> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:28 PM >> *To:* Patrick H. Lauke >> *Cc:* GLWAI Guidelines WG org; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org >> <mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with >> numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) >> >> Ah very good >> >> that would definitely be a barrier to someone whose computer is >> locked / mounted in one position or another >> >> Ok — so you are thinking of an SC that requires pages to be viewable >> without requiring the user to rotate their screens in on format or >> another? >> Sounds like a good - and new - and testable one. >> >> anyone see a hole in this? >> >> /gregg/ >> >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Patrick H. Lauke >> <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> >> Many sites currently do this sort of thing in a very primitive way >> (they check the browser window/viewport width/height and, if it's >> not in the "correct" ratio, they simply put a big roadblock in >> front of the content until the user changes the ratio/turns the >> device. As noted earlier in this thread, there are now more robust >> standards/techniques coming (screen orientation API, CSS >> directives that lock a view into a particular orientation, >> directives in progressive web app JSON manifests that explicitly >> set a locked orientation). And again, WCAG currently doesn't have >> the tools to flag this as a problem. >> >> 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 Wednesday, 29 June 2016 17:31:29 UTC