Re: CFC - Device Sensors

Hi all,

We have a 'situation'. There are strong voices of support for this SC, 
and we have some cogent objections. In order to try to progress this as 
we do not have a clear consensus, a couple of things.

<chair hat off>

I see the objections, and the call for the need to narrow the scope of 
this SC etc. However, I would like to see this get wider review and 
think this SC would benefit greatly from it even if the issues with it 
are not resolved before we go to CR. If in the course of the next few 
months the objections still stand or cannot be squared in a way that 
makes a solid SC, then it will not make it to CR.

Personally, I've worked with people with a range of disabilities where 
physical movement was extremely limited/exhausting etc and I'm happy to 
see an SC like this designed to accommodate them and stimulate wider 
discussion around this cohorts specific needs.

So, I'm concerned that if we do not now get wider review we risk 
throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm actually not comfortable 
taking the opportunity for wider review when what seems like an 
interesting/progressive SC is on the table.

</chair hat off>

So I'll reiterate the question - could those who object not live with 
this SC getting wider review? Even if we find that the best way to serve 
users is via an exception to 2.1.1 then that is fine with me, but I 
would like to have wider input before we make a final decision.

Thanks

Josh



White, Jason J wrote:
>
> -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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie