Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"

Geoff - thanks, I think that the devices are characterised by what they 
don't have rather than what they do have. I'm not clear that using a 
touch screen involves tab navigation so I would prefer to stay with "may 
not have a pointing device".

Jo

On 13/10/2008 22:25, Heath, Geoffrey wrote:
> Jo and Yeliz,
> 
> In regards to the previous statements below:
> 
>>> Sorry if this seems a bit picky, or unduly politically correct, but
>>>
>>> "Mobile Context: Pointing device not present or inadequate."
>>>
>>> I think that saying "inadequate" opens a number of questions which
>>> we don't want to go into here, so maybe we can just say "There may
>>> be no pointing device"
> 
> 
>         > I understand your point. What about changing Mobile context to "
>         > Device has no mouse, only alphanumeric keypad or joystick so user can
>         > use tab navigation to move from one element to another". Do you think
>         > this will solve the ambiguity in the definition?
> 
> 
> I think the Mobile Context definition needs to be thought of in a broader scope, because the navigation paradigms are ever-changing. Issues I see with the proposed definitions above.
> 
> - I don't know of a mobile device that utilizes a mouse.
> - Touch / Multi-touch screen interfaces are not addressed.. There is no "mouse or stylus", but the device still allows for "non tab navigation of content".
> - What about devices that utilize a rollerball [blackberry style].. This is not addressed.
> - What about devices that utilize multi-soft key only? [2-3 softkeys].
> - What about devices that utilze a touchpad?
> - Is joystick a synanomous term with rockerpad? What is the current industry definition/name for that hardware element?
> 
> I believe the broader the scope of the definition, the less "detailed nuances" you will have troubles with, and the longer the document can remain effective. Device navigation paradigms are constantly changing and evolving.
> 
> I would propose sticking with something even more generic and simple:
> "Mobile Context: Tab Navigation to move from one element to another"..
> 
> There is no amgiguity in the definition... Tab navigation is being used, regardless of device capabilities/paradigm. Yet, it doesn't involve the intimate details of attaching every type of device navigation paradigm to the definition. Clean, simple, and more "timeless".
> 
> My thoughts.
> 
> _________________________
> Geoff Heath
> Hewlett-Packard
> Sr. Information Architect
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yeliz Yesilada
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:02 PM
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: wai-eo-editors@w3.org; public-bpwg
> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on "Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities"
> 
> 
> Hi Jo,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> On 13 Oct 2008, at 10:13, Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
>>>> Under Focus (tab) order - I think the mobile section sort of
>> implies that navigation is via tab key, which it isn't, but in any
>> case it may be worth mentioning that it's hard to navigate with the
>> common 4-way rocker.
>>
>>> Please let me know what you think about the latest version of the
>> description, I tried not to talk about any specific technology here.
>>
>> Sorry if this seems a bit picky, or unduly politically correct, but
>>
>> "Mobile Context: Pointing device not present or inadequate."
>>
>> I think that saying "inadequate" opens a number of questions which
>> we don't want to go into here, so maybe we can just say "There may
>> be no pointing device"
> 
> 
> I understand your point. What about changing Mobile context to "
> Device has no mouse, only alphanumeric keypad or joystick so user can
> use tab navigation to move from one element to another". Do you think
> this will solve the ambiguity in the definition?
> 
>>> Changed the description to "Some older mobile browsers do not
>> display content with invalid markup. Additionally, content
>> adaptation for mobile device agents is unpredictable and possibly
>> incomplete if the page markup is invalid."
>>
>> I really think the second sentence (Additionally ...) asks more
>> questions than it answers so it would be better if it was removed.
> 
> OK, I will remove that.
> 
> Please let me know what you think about the suggested change above so
> that I can quickly change the document.
> 
> Yeliz.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 08:46:00 UTC