See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2014
<Kathy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/G162
<Kathy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/G162
Jan: looks good except uses the word before and the point of the changes that we want to position the labels above
<jon_avila> +1
<AWK> suggestion: "smaller screens, positioning the labels above the field avoids horizontal scrolling and also increases the likelihood that a user using the zoom feature will be able to view both label and control."
Kathy: good catch, I'll go back and change
John: width?
Andrew: ignore previous
suggestion
... sentence before, instead of screen magnifier, zoom features
would be more generic
Kathy: other suggestions?
Andrew: on smaller width screens
Kathy: other changes?
discussing description change
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/M2
Kathy: this is an advisory under 2.1.1 and 1.4.4, about providing adequate text size
<jon_avila> The horizontal distance between labels and fields is best minimized to assist users with low vision and cognitive disabilities to make the association between the label and the field and to promote the label and field appearing in the view when content is zoomed.
Mike: invention of swiping left and right was the solution for this. That someone were to try to solve this for iOS you could actually create a larger text element because they would overlap something else.
Kathy: will send this back –
remove direction, focus on web content as far as touch sizes
go
... will ask for clarification any time we are referencing
something we need the research.
<jon_avila> http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1085
Andrew: MIT study average human finger tip 8-10 millimeters
Kathy: we can go back and ask Alan and more questions on that
Mike: looking for the center of the touch area and trying to apply to the touch target
Andrew: is this an accessibility issue
Jan: such targets on a map – always zooming in and out and part of expected use
Kathy: between an advisory and a sufficient technique this is an advisory technique so is this something that we should steer away from – what falls under an advisory technique versus what would be under WCAG at all
Andrew: advisory is new. This one
feels gray enough. I don't object to the idea of having an
advisory technique that surround this. But I think if someone
said applying the same criteria to other techniques if you
don't do it you would fail a WCAG success criteria the answer
would probably have to be no. I'm not sure what it would fail,
because it impacts anyone using the content and not...
... just a disability. It fits well in Apple's guidelines –
doesn't say that it's an accessibility issue, just that people
need this
Jon: advisory techniques not just
things that may be supported the things that go beyond –
example G 162 it's not required to meet the success criteria
but it can be mapped to a particular success criteria – it goes
above and beyond
... would be difficult to test because devices have different
size screens. Other option is if we made it a best practice we
don't have to have tests
Kathy: is there a best practice right now under WCAG
Andrew: advisory techniques are best practices
Kathy: we'd originally mapped it to principle 2.1.1 or 1.4.4, then principal to because it didn't really fit under any of them
Jon: reading definition – it would be okay to have an advisory technique that wasn't testable
Andrew: what would make it testable is if you said okay I'm using an iPhone 6+ and a nexus 7 – criteria would have to be ratcheted down to the point where you can say this is how it's done
Jan: instead of specifying type of device, for the mobile thing we are going to a 5 inch screen versus say a 1 inch watch screen which is also a type of mobile device. if you design it for the 5 inch screen is going to be too small on the 1 inch screen.
Kathy: that gets to the organization as far as what's at supporting – they may say you're not supporting the watch, just this particular platform. We have to be careful there
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Technique_Development_Assignments
<jon_avila> Yes!
Andrew: The big question that I
have is how do we attach this to WCAG as an advisory technique
– where in the guideline success criteria do we attach that.
And I don't think there's anyone is going to disagree that it's
something that we want to make sure that we are communicating
as a best practice. Our challenge is where it goes. I wanted to
go against principal two. But as you dive into...
... the guideline level, it's not just about making it work
with a keyboard it's about making it work with your finger.
This is highlighting a gap that we have in WCAG to as far as
success criteria that allow us to attach to something like
that.
<jon_avila> Andrew, thank you for joining these calls.
Kathy: we have several like that – M 2, 4, 7 all fall into the same category that were talking about now
Andrew: it makes sense to show this is the best practice in the mobile space
Kathy: maybe we should put these
on hold, have the WCAG group discuss them, figure out what
direction. These are sticking points. I don't the implication
of writing these was clear until we started writing.
... some sort of guidance – where could those go and should
they be under WCAG
Andrew: that would be good for the working group to talk about when we meet and talk about this at the face-to-face so we can have clarity
Kathy: deadline coming up. If people can take preferably ones that are sufficient technique and get them done that would be appreciated
<jon_avila> The horizontal distance between labels and fields is best minimized to assist users with low vision and cognitive disabilities to make the association between the label and the field and to promote the label and field appearing in the view when content is zoomed.
Jon: I updated G162 on the wiki
<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/G162
Kathy: any objections to
accepting as amended
... updating on wiki
RESOLUTION: send G162 to working group
Kathy: other comments? We will
not have meeting next week because of TPAC
... hoping people can work on techniques in those two weeks and
have a lot ready for November 6
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: KimPatch Inferring Scribes: KimPatch Default Present: Kim_Patch, Kathy_Wahlbin, Jeanne, AWK, Jan, jon_avila, +1.408.425.aaaa Present: Kim_Patch Kathy_Wahlbin Jeanne AWK Jan jon_avila +1.408.425.aaaa Regrets: Brent_Shiver Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2014Oct/0010.html Found Date: 23 Oct 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/23-mobile-a11y-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]