RE: Clarification on Pointer Gesture proposal was RE: CFC - Pointer Gestures SC

My feeling is that exceptions need to be in the SC as that is what is normative.  In addition, when we have essential we are generally saying that something can’t be done another way and that if removed would fundamentally change it.  The proposed use of essential here is not consistent with how we use it in WCAG 2.0.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access, inc. (formerly SSB BART Group, inc.)
(703) 637-8957
Jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:Jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Visit us online: Website<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Detlev TK [mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:50 AM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Clarification on Pointer Gesture proposal was RE: CFC - Pointer Gestures SC

Hi Jon,

good catch. I memory serves, we did not nail this down conclusively.

In the call, the argument was made that in web apps, gestures like long press and double click are sometimes carried over from the non-web app world, and it would seem odd to outlaw these gestures that people are familiar with in the UA or OS context (and cause a lot of pushback).

If it is consensus to basically exempt timed single point gestures, the question we have to decide is if

- we add an exception to the SC text itself;
- we assume that the use of double click and long press can qualify as essential (e.g. if it is needed to differentiate two actions attached to the same element) and then be exempt, but that these gestures are generally covered; in that case we need to explain that in the understanding document.

I lean towards the second option but others may hold that we need to nail this down in the SC text. Based on the feedback on this thread I will modify the understanding text (or propose another SC rewording).

Detlev



On 19 Nov 2017, at 02:31, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>> wrote:

I read the  minutes from the call and it was not clear to me what the decision was on long press.  Is or is not long press a timed gesture?

Jonathan
.


From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:19 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC - Pointer Gestures SC
Importance: High

Call For Consensus — ends November 21st at 1:30pm Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed a change to the Pointer Gestures SC, as proposed in this survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/resolving_pointer_gestures/results) and discussed on the November 17 call (https://www.w3.org/2017/11/17-ag-minutes.html#item02).

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,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0>