RE: CFC - Device Sensors

-1 to the CfC for the reasons that Steve gives below. In addition, the only valuable aspect of this proposal is the exception, which needs to be carefully crafted and added to 2.1.1. The actual requirement of this proposal is redundant with 2.1.1, as has been pointed out in earlier discussions.

From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 12:24 PM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; kim@redstartsystems.com; Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC - Device Sensors

Kathy & Kim,

I agree strongly with Jason that this is not a fix to be worked on in Understanding and the normative text is severely flawed.  If this had been an SC that had hundreds of comments and tweaks behind the scenes to peel the onion and respond to all input, then I probably would not hesitate to say we can continue to work on it or may not have objected at all, but that’s not the case unfortunately.  There is no shortage of work to do on the SC that have had such discussion.

I certainly get that this is supposed to be about disabilities that limit the movement or manipulation of a device to perhaps zero and I am not opposed to the idea of this SC at all.  However, the scope problem begins there because this includes only 2 common sensors commonly found in mobile devices: accelerometer and gyroscope.  The SC clearly includes much more than those and I see no way other common sensors can disadvantage PWDs – it’s not just an editorial problem.

To show why this SC needs more discussion after the onion is peeled, let’s say for the sake of argument we limit it only to accelerometer, which provides the primary input to determine shaking.  If I create a drawing app with a “shake to erase” feature, then I’d pass the current criterion simply by also having an erase button.  But has that really solved all potential problems?

If I’m prone to tremors or I have a device mounted to a wheelchair and hit a lot of bumps, I may have a problem with accidentally triggering that feature all the time.  In that scenario, what I really need the SC to say is that I can turn off that feature.  Maybe I’m making up a user problem there, but my point is that this SC could easily go down a path of a bigger discussion on HCI and the types of input AT available.  If I’m not making up a problem there, then that’s unfortunate because 2.1.1 definitely doesn’t cover such a scenario.

Steve

From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:14 PM
To: kim@redstartsystems.com<mailto:kim@redstartsystems.com>; Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com<mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>>; Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie<mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Device Sensors

I am concerned about the overlap with 2.1.1 and with the definition of device sensors. I don’t think problems with the definition can be resolved in the Understanding document, as it’s non-normative, whereas the definition is normative.

From: Kim Patch [mailto:kim@redstartsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:08 PM
To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com<mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>>; Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie<mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: 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 forward.

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.

Cheers,
Kim
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 kathyw@ia11y.com<mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com>
www.InteractiveAccessibility.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.InteractiveAccessibility.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=R6pO1n1gYTjSeuedBSRoRh862gZL0GmGjfaKOnKxfBo%3D&reserved=0>

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><mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org><mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2017AprJun%2F1284.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=ast7WU8JjOk38xWAqH%2BS4oLY%2FuDfCIQz3M6mr5Wrarc%3D&reserved=0>
[2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Final_prelockdown_set/results<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FFinal_prelockdown_set%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=41H29f2ukocJnKlHWaIIOcdf4udowGJBWKefEaU9C7k%3D&reserved=0>

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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F08%2F22-ag-minutes.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=wSg7tZtbmUhbujXh9Ef9WcM0FjAEkhVe6e3gfNHUMXs%3D&reserved=0>

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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fdevice-sensors_ISSUE-67%2Fguidelines%2Fsc%2F21%2Fdevice-sensors.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=DCClTUTtjmmBt6x8I81pEszynmV3AmGsv2wXUS6eFUo%3D&reserved=0>

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


--
___________________________________________________

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

www.redstartsystems.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstartsystems.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=HKP0p2iQTbtIaB%2Bwvh7DYgZo6TOCW4g87W2BDpSlYxI%3D&reserved=0>
- making speech fly

Blog: Patch on Speech
+Kim Patch
@RedstartSystems
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkimpatch&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C9ae53b09720d45fe049808d4eb23a0b7%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636391985641841512&sdata=AyBbWllnLmc9bosKftDgPQJdQY8MqKwjQ2D%2FflBjwIg%3D&reserved=0>
___________________________________________________

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________