RE: CFC - Device Sensors

Hi Steve –

Would you be ok putting this into the draft and adding an editor’s note that the scope and definition need to be worked on to limit the scope?  This is an important SC and many people feel strongly that this should be included.

Kathy
CEO & Founder
Interactive Accessibility

T (978) 443-0798  F (978) 560-1251  C (978) 760-0682
E kathyw@ia11y.com<mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com>
www.InteractiveAccessibility.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.interactiveaccessibility.com_&d=CwMGaQ&c=jxhwBfk-KSV6FFIot0PGng&r=UK__SX18Mp9Fb6tIJfzgjkhM1qTux9WksegD3zR-Bss&m=Kyx2xjSikKdohzK4YYjpf6lkpNeSYzbcW2-3BWkmRfM&s=QvEa6SOOfiPYi3edgtQBne9UjZFUHulJz3xqkGwAu7o&e=>

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:10 AM
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC - Device Sensors

-1
The bulk of my comments from the first CFC [1] and from the survey [2] have gone unaddressed or even discussed.  I’m at a conference this week, so I could not join the meeting to voice this audibly, but the first go-around was nearly 2 months ago and my comments in the current survey have not changed much.  In short, there are 2 interrelated problems here:

  1.  The scope far outreaches any documented user problem, which consists of a very short description and one example of shaking a device.  Many sensors, such as a thermometer, barometer, GPS, or ambient light, cannot possibly disadvantage people with disabilities because they require no physical or cognitive ability to operate other than possessing the device.  This criterion needs to be scoped down to sensors that can actually be used in inaccessible ways for PWDs.
  2.  Sensor is an extremely vague term to be using here, and the definition of a “component that detects and responds to some type of input from the physical environment” includes every input type I can think of including keyboards, mice, touch screens, and various AT to mimic those interfaces.  Just because we don’t normally think of these as “sensors” doesn’t mean they are not… Virtually every electronic device a human can interact with is using sensors of some sort.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/1284.html

[2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Final_prelockdown_set/results


Steve

From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:18 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC - Device Sensors

Call For Consensus — ends Friday August 25th at 1:00pm Boston time.

The Working Group has reviewed and approved a new Success Criteria 'Device Sensors' for inclusion in the editor’s draft, with the goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.

Call minutes: http://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-ag-minutes.html


The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/device-sensors_ISSUE-67/guidelines/sc/21/device-sensors.html


If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Thanks
--
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie