Re: CFC - Device Sensors

I'm  confident that the mobile task force will be able to write an understanding for Device Sensors that contains lots of examples.

Here are a couple more beyond the classic shake to undo mentioned in the current understanding text:
- Tilt to advance to the next page
- Pan to change the view in an interactive photo
- Turn the phone to change map orientation
(this may have implications for COGA as well). This includes the growing area of augmented reality, for example, star maps.

And here are a couple more that bear looking into:
- GPS - someone providing remote eyes or interpretation for blind or map challenged folks may need a non-environmental way to control the GPS system on a remote phone
- Microphone - having to make a noise or give an audio- based answer

In a world where the communications paths to a computer are becoming more varied, it's inevitable that some communications paths won't be appropriate for all users. Folks who find it difficult or impossible to interact with sensors that measure the effects of the environment on a mobile device need practical, mobile-appropriate alternatives.  


Kim Patch

> On Aug 26, 2017, at 9:34 AM, David MacDonald <> wrote:
> I had objected to the SC on survey... citing redundancy with 2.1.1
> However, I reluctantly provided consensus. I still hold to that. However my big concern is that we only have a couple of months the vet 23 success criteria and put them in the shape that is ready for a formal consideration. We also have to write techniques and the understanding  sections. There are several success criteria I didn't have strong consensus and I am concerned about the amount of bandwidth they will take up once we get into the thick of finalization. 
>  So my hope is that this concern will be respected and that we will not lose too much bandwidth on the success criteria that we let pass-through. If so I would strongly object proceeding with this one. 
>> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 7:55 AM Joshue O Connor <> wrote:
>> Thanks Patrick, yes, I'd be happy to see that. Do others agree to this approach? 
>> Thanks 
>> Josh
>> InterAccess - Accessible UX
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" <>
>> Date: 26/08/2017 12:27 (GMT+00:00)
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: CFC - Device Sensors
>> On 26/08/2017 10:44, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> [...]
>> > 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.
>> Any chance of adding a prominent editorial note in the draft pointing 
>> out that the exact wording is under review due to potential scope issues?
>> P
>> -- 
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> |
>> |
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> -- 
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn 
> GitHub
>   Adapting the web to all users
>             Including those with disabilities
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

Received on Saturday, 26 August 2017 19:03:28 UTC