14:52:10 RRSAgent has joined #mobile-a11y 14:52:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-mobile-a11y-irc 14:52:12 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:52:12 Zakim has joined #mobile-a11y 14:52:14 Zakim, this will be WAI_MATF 14:52:14 ok, trackbot 14:52:15 Meeting: Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 14:52:15 Date: 21 July 2016 14:54:39 patrick_h_lauke has joined #mobile-a11y 14:56:37 Kim_ has joined #mobile-a11y 14:59:18 Kathy has joined #mobile-a11y 14:59:33 trackbot, start meeting 14:59:35 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:59:37 Zakim, this will be WAI_MATF 14:59:37 ok, trackbot 14:59:38 Meeting: Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 14:59:38 Date: 21 July 2016 14:59:42 zakim, this will be 6283 14:59:42 ok, Kathy 14:59:54 present+ patrick_h_lauke 14:59:57 rrsagent, make log world 15:00:03 present+ Kathy 15:00:52 present+ Detlev 15:01:18 chriscm has joined #mobile-a11y 15:01:34 marcjohlic has joined #mobile-a11y 15:02:08 present+ marcjohlic 15:03:12 Kathy: on the agenda today talk about touch and pointer, we've gone around on this, also a lot on the list 15:03:44 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering 15:04:20 Kathy: Numbering: will go with model two. All of success criteria are going to stand on their own. If working group feels that they should be combined will look at all of the success criteria coming from different taskforces and then do that within the working group. 15:04:32 present+ shadi 15:05:11 Kathy: so task force proposed success criteria that will be on its own. The work that we did – Patrick's work and combining and the discussion will be archived and looked at for 3. but for 2.1 success criteria will be separate. 15:05:31 davidmacdonald has joined #mobile-a11y 15:05:43 https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/ 15:05:58 Kathy: Patrick note this week on other input methods that we may want to consider adding based on that, but today I wanted to talk about where we are with such an pointer and then go and look at where we should be going and draft some other thoughts around the success criteria that we may want to add based on having everything standalone 15:06:21 Kathy: were not even worrying about the numbering. All we're doing is proposing success criteria. Any questions, directions? 15:06:28 q+ 15:06:53 Marc: on the task force do you want to still collect that for future conversations or don't even look at existing success criteria 15:07:46 i think to actually get work done by december, we should focus on doing the new SCs (and keep a quiet note if we come up with what we feel is overlap with existing ones, like the whole fundamental 2.1/inputs in general stuff) 15:09:08 Kathy: for 2.1 were not going to be changing any of the success criteria at all. So we can suggest changes to that – and if you look at the proposal that John foliot put together about numbering there's a model at the bottom additional thoughts that has numbering scheme 2.1.1 a. One of the things I mentioned on the call on Tuesday is some of those success criteria that were writing and... 15:09:09 ...other things may be things that we would want to have as a 2.1.1 a – meaning that it's related to this but it's not the same. Different ways that legislation has included new criteria. I'm not sure that it will change our thought process at all a versus standalone. Working group wanted us not to worry about it unless there's some kind of impact. Let them worry about how everything is... 15:09:11 ...going to get incorporated. 15:09:55 Kathy: were looking at things from the mobile perspective, there's low vision, cognitive. Although things need to be merged together. They're going to take a look at it as a whole and figure out how to put things together. 2.1.1 A, B, C is what they are considering right now. 15:10:14 q+ 15:10:43 Kathy: we can start a wiki page collecting things for 3.0 so we don't lose those things. We've already done a lot of work and I wouldn't want to see that get lost. Idea is we will create a repository were all that information will go. So things that you feel strongly about and that you feel should be included in 3.0 – easier to do it now as we are thinking about things. We should note. 15:10:53 q? 15:11:00 i'm talking 15:11:12 go to next 15:11:25 Henny has joined #mobile-a11y 15:11:52 Detlev: 2.1 is not going to change any success criteria – my understanding is the ones that are in there right now will remain unchanged but there will be additional success criteria for 2.1. Is that correct? 15:12:45 Kathy: success criteria won't be changed – they will have the same numbering. All new will be added into 2.1. Unfortunate thing is the lettering will get mixed up – for example if we wanted to have something under 2.1 it would go at the next numbering that's available. The actual numbering of that it's going to be the working group that decides that 15:13:24 Kathy: we will suggest success criteria like touch and pointer. Were going to suggest, working group will figure out how to fit it in 15:13:26 q? 15:13:35 ack Detlev 15:14:39 David: not sure the Patrick's work wouldn't end up in 2.1. They'll try to merge everything – could even merge into existing success criteria. We'd certainly have the ability to change success criteria after every things in 15:14:52 jon_avila has joined #mobile-a11y 15:15:16 present+ jon_avila 15:15:28 Kathy: at the task force level we are not providing any of that – that's at the working group level and everybody in the task force can participate in those conversations but right now the model and the guidance for the task forces is write our own success criteria that doesn't change in any way any existing success criteria. Add entirely new success criteria for the topic. We are writing... 15:15:30 ...completely separate success criteria. 15:15:52 Present+ Kim 15:15:56 present+jon_avila 15:16:11 Kathy: where this leaves us is looking at touch and pointer 15:16:58 Kathy: if we go back to the existing separate success criteria that we had, so guideline 2.5. 15:17:40 Patrick: depending on how you slice it there are a lot of different ways of categorizing 15:19:17 Patrick: leaving keyboards aside, since that's the decision for now, one of the ideas David floated on the mailing list was pointer accessible – pointer without AT. Also expanding the idea – touch with assistive technology which re-maps things. One of the gaps I think that we also have in WCAG is other types of inputs such as speech – in one way can behave like a keyboard. That... 15:19:18 ...particular mode of operation is covered by the keyboard. But in other ways it acts similarly to the touch with AT model. Doesn't emulate keyboard but moves the focus and lets you activate things. 15:20:14 Patrick: trying to list some of these things. Some very general category of assistive technology access under which we would then have things like SC's for touch AT, possibly speech input. Keyboards with AT 15:21:24 Patrick: have a list of these. Work that's already been done touch target, 44 pixel – that would fit in nicely in that kind of categorization. As well as having a more generic guideline and related SC for the more abstract stuff that we talked about like special sensors – rotation, vibration on mobile device or laptop. And then the additional, fancy input stuff with tilt and twist and... 15:21:25 ...pressure on other touchscreens or stylus type inputs 15:22:02 Patrick: Taken the keyboard needs to say as it is at a given for now we've already started Detlev and I and others looking in that light and I think we can come up with something solid enough to discuss for next week's call 15:22:07 Kathy: also camera 15:24:12 Patrick: probably need to discuss way in which an input is actually handled by the user versus how it's handled in the user agent. In the end most of them boil down to three things either look like there a keyboard, and so the driver in Windows that actually looks like it's a keyboard and sends keyboard events. They could look like a mouse so they simulate a mouse. Connect on the Xbox or... 15:24:13 ...Windows. you gesture to the camera but in essence interprets that and moves the mouse on the screen. To the webpage it will look essentially like the user move the mouse. And then speech recognition or touch with AT hook into – programmatically activate. 15:24:50 Patrick: looks like a keyboard, looks like a pointer or accesses AT. Looking at it that way we can fill the gaps – keyboard is already in 2.0 - for the other two modalities 15:25:07 Patrick: plan for the wildcards as well 15:25:22 Kathy: anything to add Chris? 15:26:01 q+ 15:26:56 Chris: to summarize what I said last week – when you're working on software development in particular and the stuff we're talking about when you try and solve something in the wrong place you can feel like you're beating around the bush, trying to come up with all these complicated ways of saying things and you can't quite figure out the right way to say it because you're solving the... 15:26:58 ...problem in the wrong place. Not for all of the issues we've been talking about but especially the keyboard, touch ATs. If we were to solve this at a deeper level rather than sending it to the application developers I think you'd find solution much much cleaner. The way we've been trying to solve some of these things has been the wrong approach. 15:27:17 David: thoughts as a group for 2.5.1 are we looking at trying to replace that with something more generic at a different level or working with that? 15:27:42 Patrick: I think it's pretty solid. Potentially say the same thing for different AT modalities. 15:28:19 speaking of that: please review https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/pull/9 which closes ACTION-55 15:28:57 Kathy: one of the things we had talked about with the comments – what triggered all the separation was the whole definition, touch versus pointer in the language we had in there. When we were looking at changing this several weeks back we were looking at how touch and pointer and whether or not we should just say pointer. That's what sparked this whole conversation. We do need to look at... 15:28:58 ...comments from WcAG working group as well. 15:29:46 Patrick: Link above – 2.5 pixels 20 pixels stuff pull request 15:29:51 https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/pull/9/files 15:30:17 Patrick: look at the changes tab 15:30:44 Patrick: or take down this pull request locally and then look at it locally and then if it's okay you accept the pull request, but that is complex in some cases 15:31:16 Patrick: also way to see the live version on Github 15:31:58 https://rawgit.com/ 15:32:07 https://cdn.rawgit.com/patrickhlauke/Mobile-A11y-Extension/943bc8ca13dd005e893c0e793f393561d86250b5/index.html 15:33:32 https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/pull/9/files 15:35:17 Patrick: main points of what I've changed: definition from pointer to pointer input in first paragraph. Changed the glossary definition to talk about pointer inputs rather than pointers. 15:35:49 Patrick: the use of course and fine to define the accuracy – borrowed from media, cross-reference as editor's note 15:36:40 q? 15:36:51 q- 15:37:55 Patrick: SC first meant for touch then grafted mouse onto it – cleaned up language to make them a bit more equal. glossary change pointer versus pointer input 15:38:03 q+ 15:38:04 +1 nice job, Patrick. 15:38:12 Patrick: if it sounds good we can merge the pull request 15:38:16 I especially like the definition change 15:38:18 https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/pull/8 15:38:58 Patrick: clean up the gene has already accepted a support request, on discussion already on github 15:39:16 https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues 15:39:35 q+ to speak to cross-referencing 15:40:09 q+ 15:40:23 next 15:41:14 David: Good pull request 15:41:45 Shadi: make coarse and fine a definition. Cross-referencing needs to be a bit more clear 15:43:02 https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/pull/8 15:43:15 which references https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/4 and https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/1 15:43:33 https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/6 15:48:10 q+ 15:48:20 q- 15:48:21 Kim explaining the devastating effect of single key shortcuts to speech users 15:49:18 Advice is for users to be able to customise / turn off single key shortcuts 15:51:02 Kim: without ability to turn off these shortcuts it creates a huge barrier for speech input users 15:52:07 to me this feels like a Level AAA allow users to disable/customise keyboard shortcuts 15:52:14 Kim: focus issues as well, speech by others can interfere - Gmail is a big problem 15:53:08 Kim: YOu can customise single key shortcuts in Gmail so you won't trigger them accidentally 15:54:30 Kim: option to preface commands with a keyword to make sure that the command is intended 15:56:43 Kim: commands surrounded by pauses to be discerned / interpreted 15:58:43 Kim: custom commands don't interfere with other input likekeyboard 15:59:32 David: connection to access keys? 15:59:38 Kim: no 16:00:17 Kim: enabling a phrase as command is enabling for speech 16:00:45 How hard would that be for JavaScript to interpret a string of characters rather than a keystroke? 16:00:57 Kim: mapping of kb commands and speech commands would be useful - key is customisation 16:01:44 Kathy: will talk about speech more later 16:01:48 requiring on/off for single-key commands sounds like a potential level AA. requiring that users can customise the single-key commands sounds like a level AAA 16:02:07 and potentially there's cross-over with what UAs should be doing, can't lump it all under author requirements i'd say 16:02:26 NEW SC Possibility: Either there is a mechanism to turn off Keyboard shortcuts 16:02:27 (or rather, it's unlikely all authors will do this...a hard sell) 16:02:54 Kathy: start thinking about gaps that we are missing so we can get that on the agenda. Not necessarily success criteria but anything 16:03:10 NEW SC Possibility: If there is a customization feature for Keyboard shortcuts, it allows up to 20 characters. 16:03:57 patrick_h_lauke has left #mobile-a11y 16:15:54 rrsagent, make minutes 16:15:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim 16:17:13 Present+ Chris, David 16:17:34 rrsagent, make minutes 16:17:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim 16:20:25 Regrets+ Alistair 16:20:34 rrsagent, make minutes 16:20:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim 16:21:06 rrsagent, make minutes 16:21:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim 16:28:33 Present+ Jeanne 16:28:48 rrsagent, make minutes 16:28:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-mobile-a11y-minutes.html Kim 16:31:11 rrsagent, bye 16:31:11 I see no action items