Re: CFC - Device Sensors

Hi Steve,

I understand your concern with scope. This SC is supposed to be about 
device sensors not working as a developer may expect for a person who 
has a disability because that person may not be able to manipulate a 
device – at all, precisely enough, or quickly enough.

The device sensor definition defines examples that are based on using 
sensors to take environmental measurements. These examples are an 
attempt to make it clear that "physical environment" refers to something 
apart from communication through an input device, and that environmental 
measurements include the location, motion and orientation of the device 
as a whole.

    *Device sensor:* A device sensor is a device component that detects
    and responds to some type of input from the physical environment.
    Examples on mobile devices are the measurement of motion,
    orientation, and various environmental conditions.

If I'm reading your comments correctly, you may also have concerns with 
the last part of the definition "and various environmental conditions". 
I think we have work to do in making sure this is scoped to what a 
person with a disability is or is not able to do versus what is 
expected, and I think we can do that in the understanding document going 

Do you have ideas for understanding language that would better make 
these distinctions?

I do think that this is an important SC.

Hope this helps.


On 8/24/2017 11:59 AM, Kathy Wahlbin wrote:
> 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*<>
> 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 []
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:10 AM
> *To:* Joshue O Connor <>; WCAG <>
> *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]
> [2]
> Steve
> *From:*Joshue O Connor []
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:18 PM
> *To:* WCAG < <>>
> *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:
> The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
> 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 *| *


Kimberly Patch
Redstart Systems
(617) 325-3966 <> <>
- making speech fly

Blog: Patch on Speech
+Kim Patch
@RedstartSystems <>

Received on Thursday, 24 August 2017 19:08:19 UTC