W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-SC 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures readiness to incorporate into editors draft

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: maryjom@us.ibm.com

This questionnaire was open from 2023-04-13 to 2023-04-26.

9 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures

1. Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures

The draft proposal for the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.5.1 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you think this is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor's draft as-is.	2
The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	6
The proposal isn't ready to incorporate yet.	1

Details

Responder	Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures	Comments
Bruce Bailey	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor's draft as-is.
Gregg Vanderheiden	The proposal isn't ready to incorporate yet.	For the original proposal of adding the following note: Note: Applicability of this success criterion would be limited to software and non-web documents where interactive gesture capabilities are available for authors to add. Examples included but not limited to prototyping tools used to design software. I do not understand the need for this limitation. It should be true in all cases. If the author can't add interactive gestures - then it is automatically met (e.g. no alternative is needed if no interactive gesture is possible). Also, it may not be "available for them to add" - but they could craft one from scratch in their content. In all cases - if it is present in the content, document, or software, there should be an alternative. No? RE the followup notes that were posted. I'm not sure the problem cited in the follow up notes is a problem. Since everything is supposed to be doable from the keyboard, the fact that some dragging motions require two gestures -- (one horizontal to select and then vertical to drag down) is not a problem. Both select and move down should be accomplish-able from the keyboard. Perhaps we just need to point out that the drag horizontal then vertical is not a path dependent gesture - but actually two chained gestures. But I don't think even that is really necessary Perhaps I am missing the point here. What is the problem the additional comment are trying to solve? ALSO - where doe the comment " dragging movement (which will require alternatives only in WCAG 2.2, " come from? A requirement that everything (including dragging) be operable from the keyboard has been around since WCAG 1.0. Again - am I missing the message?
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	Suggested edit to the note is in my comment on the issue, essentially recommending to use similar language and treatment as 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/143#issuecomment-1515405576 I don't think the other comments would cause any need for changes to my proposal.
Sam Ogami	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor's draft as-is.
Phil Day	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	Incorporate comments from Mary Jo
Mitchell Evan	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	Incorporate comments from Mary Jo, plus my further comments: * For non-web documents, responding to one of Gregg's concerns: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/143#issuecomment-1521820123 * For non-web software, editing for brevity: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/143#issuecomment-1521827897
Mike Pluke	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	Incorporating Mary Jo's comments plus Mitchell Evan's comments seems to resolve all of the problems for me.
Thorsten Katzmann	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	with the comments from Mary Jo and Mitchell Evan the description is clear and should avoid confusion
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposal can be incorporated into the WCAG2ICT editor' draft with some changes.	I think that Mary Jo's proposal is quite good, but needs two modifications. For non-web documents, the second note proposed by Mitchell is better.in my opinion. For non-web software, I would suggest to replace "user agent" with "platform software" (in the note). With this change, the applicability note (note 1) for non-web software would be: "This requirement applies to [non-web software] that interprets pointer actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to operate platform software or assistive technology)." Once this is done, the second note for non-web software is not needed for non-web software.