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

That definition sounds good to me.

"mobile devices may not have
a pointing device so user can use tab navigation to move from one
element to another"

I think that's great.

_________________________
Geoff Heath
Hewlett-Packard
Sr. Information Architect


-----Original Message-----
From: Yeliz Yesilada [mailto:yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:57 AM
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: Heath, Geoffrey; 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"

I think if we are having this discussion here that means my
definition is not good :) I personally want to keep them as short as
possible as the other W3C documents explain the stated problems in
detail. I will change the definition to "mobile devices may not have
a pointing device so user can use tab navigation to move from one
element to another".

Jo, Geoff, will it be OK for you if I change the definition to this?

Yeliz.

On 14 Oct 2008, at 05:45, Jo Rabin wrote:

>
> 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 14:04:24 UTC