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

Hey Jan Jaap,
Thank you for the response and the clarifications. I'm looking forward to
seeing more of this work i the future.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:43 PM Jan Jaap de Groot <janjaap@abra.ai> wrote:

> 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
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Director accessibility automation - W3C AC representative - Facilitator ACT
Task Force