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

Hi

Sorry to continue what I think is a very small point, but I am not clear 
what "tab navigation" means other than using the tab key to navigate. 
Since a lot of mobile devices don't have a tab key that doesn't really 
work. Perhaps the following works:

mobile devices may not have a pointing device so the user may have to 
navigate elements serially in document order.

Jo


On 14/10/2008 15:01, Heath, Geoffrey wrote:
> 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 15:10:05 UTC