Re: CFC - Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile Applications (WCAG2Mobile)

Hi Wilco, Dan, others,

*@Wilco:* Thanks for your detailed feedback. We have discussed it earlier
today in our weekly meeting (minutes
<https://www.w3.org/2025/03/19-matf-minutes.html>). Based on that, our
response is given below.

*1. How frequently do we think this document is going to need to be updated
to keep it current? Mobile technologies change fairly rapidly. Why did the
group choose a working group note for this? These are generally not used
for things that need regular maintenance, which it seems like this would
need.*

Compared to the web, browsers have major releases multiple times a year,
mobile operating systems, such as Android and iOS, have less frequent major
releases, around once a year.

Our group expects that our document does not need more regular updates
compared to WCAG or WCAG2ICT.

*2. If a note is the best way to do this, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't
be better to incorporate this work into WCAG2ICT. This document seems a
little odd to me, it essentially adds notes on top of WCAG2ICT, which
itself is a document that adds notes on top of WCAG 2.2. Is there a good
reason for this to be its own document, other than it is created by a
different task force? It seems like how we organize the task forces
shouldn't dictate which documents we have. The other way around seems more
appropriate.*

We have discussed this possibility, and it is still a future option. At
this moment, the Mobile Accessibility Task Force has to take both the
mobile web space *and* non-web mobile space into account. Meaning that our
guidance cannot be included directly in WCAG2ICT, because WCAG2ICT only
covers non-web. For the non-web part of our guidance we want to align with
the intent of the non-web guidance of WCAG2ICT. Given that we also cover
the mobile web space, we are also sharing our mobile insights with the
larger AG WG.

*3. Which operating systems are considered for this guidance? Having asked
TF participants this seems to be all about Android and iOS. While those are
certainly dominant in the US, that's not reflective of the international
market. To what extent does this guidance apply to HarmonyOS or Ubuntu
Touch for example? Guidance for Android and iOS is valuable, but if that's
the current scope of the work I feel that should be much clearer, including
in the document's name. I also wonder how this applies to tablet-only
operating systems such as ChromeOS and SteamOS. Can we get some clarity on
this?*

For this First Public Working Draft, our group has focused on identifying
guidance gaps for Android and iOS. The guidance we have written is not
exclusively applicable to these operating systems, but can be applied more
broadly to other mobile operating systems. Our group agrees that we should
clarify this in our document.

An issue has been created to clarify the scope:
https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/102

*4. Why did the group choose to use WCAG 3.0's "view" definition? This is
something that is actively being worked on, and so any change can alter the
meaning of WCAG2Mobile guidance. It would seem better for this document had
its own definition of view. Those could then be helpful input for WCAG 3.0.*

The plan is to align the guidance with the WCAG3 definition, this is only
the first public working draft, we can change that. We can also pull in the
definition to the WCAG2Mobile document if it is not going to align.

At the time that our group started working on guidance (January 2024) we
figured that the WCAG 3 view definition would be fitting to use in our
guidance. In the meantime, the View subgroup has been established and
progress has been made towards a definition that can be used in
WCAG2Mobile, WCAG2ICT and WCAG 3.

Our group agrees that our document should not link to an external document
for a key term. In the next version of our guidance, we will add a
definition of "view" (or: screen) in our own document, instead of linking
to an external document. Ideally, we'd like to use the view definition from
WCAG 3 - but if needed we will adapt it to fit in our mobile context.

We have an existing issue for defining "view" and "sets of webpages" in
mobile context: https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/11


*@Dan: *
*Expanding on Wilco's 4th point, I think the term "view" is especially
confusing for a document specifically aimed at mobile because "View"
already has a specific technical meaning in both Android UI development
<https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/View> and iOS UIKit
development
<https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/views-and-controls> which
is very different from the definition being used here. This is one of the
main reasons I have pushed back against the term "view" more generally in
WCAG 3 discussions, but it's especially notable here.*

This concern has also been raised in our group
<https://www.w3.org/2025/02/19-matf-minutes.html#b2dd>, when Hidde de Vries
presented the progress of the View subgroup. I have also personally
mentioned the View + UIView classes in my presentation at TPAC 2024
<https://janjaap.com/tpac2024/>.
Our group seems to lean towards using "screen" or "page", however, we also
see the benefit of using the "view" definition. Depending on the outcome of
the discussions, we will pull in the definition, and adapt it if needed.

I hope this answers the questions, otherwise, please let us know.

Op wo 19 mrt 2025 om 11:29 schreef Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>:

> Hey folks,
> I have a couple questions about this. I'm broadly supportive of this kind
> of effort. Clarity on how to apply WCAG to mobile is important work. But
> there are some things which make me unsure about the precise approach that
> was taken here:
>
> 1. How frequently do we think this document is going to need to be updated
> to keep it current? Mobile technologies change fairly rapidly. Why did the
> group choose a working group note for this? These are generally not used
> for things that need regular maintenance, which it seems like this would
> need.
>
> 2. If a note is the best way to do this, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't
> be better to incorporate this work into WCAG2ICT. This document seems a
> little odd to me, it essentially adds notes on top of WCAG2ICT, which
> itself is a document that adds notes on top of WCAG 2.2. Is there a good
> reason for this to be its own document, other than it is created by a
> different task force? It seems like how we organize the task forces
> shouldn't dictate which documents we have. The other way around seems more
> appropriate.
>
> 3. Which operating systems are considered for this guidance? Having asked
> TF participants this seems to be all about Android and iOS. While those are
> certainly dominant in the US, that's not reflective of the international
> market. To what extent does this guidance apply to HarmonyOS or Ubuntu
> Touch for example? Guidance for Android and iOS is valuable, but if that's
> the current scope of the work I feel that should be much clearer, including
> in the document's name. I also wonder how this applies to tablet-only
> operating systems such as ChromeOS and SteamOS. Can we get some clarity on
> this?
>
> 4. Why did the group choose to use WCAG 3.0's "view" definition? This is
> something that is actively being worked on, and so any change can alter the
> meaning of WCAG2Mobile guidance. It would seem better for this document had
> its own definition of view. Those could then be helpful input for WCAG 3.0.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:39 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Call For Consensus — ends Monday March 24th at Mid-day Boston time.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Mobile Accessibility Task Force would like to publish the *First
>> Public* Working Draft of “Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Mobile
>> (WCAG2Mobile)”
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/matf/
>>
>>
>>
>> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-ag-minutes.html#851d
>>
>> (There was also a pre-CFC:
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025JanMar/0060.html )
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the pre-CFC the only change has been to adjust the name of the
>> document (adding “applications”).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 accept this decision, please let the group know before the CfC
>> deadline.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> alastairc.uk / www.nomensa.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Director accessibility automation - W3C AC representative - Facilitator
> ACT Task Force
>
>
>

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards
Jan Jaap de Groot
MSc. Human Computer Interaction
<https://abra.ai>
Abra makes apps accessible
*Check out our 4 new app accessibility courses!* <https://abra.id/academy>
abra.ai | janjaap@abra.ai