W3C

- DRAFT -

Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

22 Jan 2015

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Kim_Patch, Kathy_Wahlbin, Marc_Johlic, Jan, [IPcaller]
Regrets
Detlev_Fisher, Alan_Smith
Chair
Kathleen_Wahlbin
Scribe
Kim

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 22 January 2015

<jon_avila> I will only be joining via IRC today as I have a conflict.

Kathy: maybe we could start talking about the recent conversation that's gone back and forth on question surrounding the pinch zoom and browser functions versus device functions
... several relevant threads – keyboard interfaces, enabling Zoom

<marcjohlic> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JanMar/subject.html

Kathy: enabling Zoom on mobile devices thread, started by Mike E., conversation whether or not they should have pinch zoom, if they do need to provide alternative way to change text size

Jan: you can always just take the whole screen image and make it bigger.

Jon: the issue didn't get totally resolved, people on both sides of it. From what we discussed it seems like there are other ways that you can meet the success criteria, not just pinch zoom, you could support large text by using widget, font settings like Apple, android override. Lots of ways to meet it, but supporting pinch zoom is an easy way to always meet it in my opinion

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140916/F80

Jan: looking at a failure that pinch zoom would override

Kathy: if you have the viewport and say max size is one you can't pinch zoom

Jan: can't at the browser level but you can at the device level

Jon: in my opinion it's the browser level, not only magnifies content but also other things keyboard and parts of UI. Where I have my disagreement is Greg says regardless of the technology because it comes with a device. Pinch zoom is targeted to everyone, whereas the zoom feature in iOS is targeted to people with low vision.
... increase the text size by 200%, you can't do that within the user agent if viewport lockdown, how can you pass it?

Jan: this failure, doesn't say anything about lockdown zooming. Procedure is to increase text size, not the viewport zoom. And then you fail so you fill this success criteria.
... I we saw these failures were 100%, you do this and if it doesn't you fail

Jon: these are known failures, there are other ways to meet the success criteria, just because there's a failure here doesn't mean – may be able to pass using browser settings

<marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140916/G142

Jan: this one needs to have condition in it that clarifies

Kathy: we could add clarification in the actual failure
... in our note 8.3 magnification very relevant and what we've been talking about this whole thread. That section needs to be written yet and I think that we need to decide what direction were going to go. Based on this thread I think were going to get a lot of discussion of our comments and questions about it, especially because a lot of the people responding to the threat are on the...
... WCAG working group. I wanted us to have sufficient agreement on what direction we want this to go and we can support that based on our discussions here.

Jan: I agree with what John says about IOS level zoom being assistive technology. If you lock down some level that should be a fail

Jon: the other way to do it is to just bring up the issue, describe all the ways to meet it. Say this needs to be taken into consideration. Stat it in words that don't say it's a failure but just put it out there.

Kathy: we should also bring this up at the face-to-face meeting at CSUN
... viewport is one way to do it, your point in email thread about other ways to do it is also important to have in there

Jan: should transition most of zooming stuff to what was A3. A lot more users are going to be using consumed. A1 covers a lot of it. We should make a one primarily about things that reduce the need to zoom and move zoom into A3
... working on doing that now

Kathy: Jon – since you are familiar with the thread can you go through and make sure we have all the points in their

Jon: will do that

Kathy: Jan, thanks for doing testing. For other people doing testing if you can try to get that done this week that would be great. I'll be working on the appendix

<Kathy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20150112_survey/results

Note Review - please fill out the survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/20150112_survey/

Note introduction

<Jan> The term also applies to "wearables" such as "smart"-glasses, "smart"-watches and fitness bands and other small computing devices such as those embedded into car dashboards, airplane seatbacks, and household appliances.

Jon: they have similar challenges

Kathy: Detlev suggestions on wording – Kim can take into consideration with the wording pass through this week

Jan: we say this is informative not normative a lot of times

<Kathy> The current document references existing WCAG 2.0 Techniques that apply to mobile platform (see Appendix A) and provides new best practices, which may in the future become WCAG 2.0 Techniques that directly address some of the emerging mobile accessibility challenges, such as small screens, touch and gesture interface, and changing screen orientation.

Kathy: reorder – move up just before the normative techniques, move that up and then delete the rest of the section – thoughts on that?

Jan making change

A1 small screen size

Kathy: some of the comments will be covered by the changes we just talked about
... any further separation of the sections?

Jan: A1 stays small screen size. A2 Zoom and text resizing. 2 and 3 put together, I will do some smoothing.

A3 color contrast and glare

Jan: made Alan's changes

Kathy: thoughts on that Detlev comments

Jan: added, will smooth later

Jon: 1.4.3 – purpose of putting in 1.2 and 1.5 times is not to say text will be readable, but the allowance for produced contrast is permissible in larger text. In reality even if you do that people with low vision – still not going to be helpful enough, so you still have to use other features like pinch zooming to read the text. We don't want to give the idea that if you make your text...
... 100% the size it's going to be accessible. That was Greg's caveat at the end of the discussion – we need to make it clear that this doesn't solve these issues.
... some of these paragraphs duplicate each other

Kathy: we do have repetition, but it does add some clarity. I'm fine with keeping it in. I think once we get the document finalize we can go back and see where we want to remove stuff. Once we get a2 written we may want to either adjust that or just leave it in. Once we get the whole section we might want to adjust..

Jon: will look at A2 after the call

Kathy: then we need to look at A 1, 2, 3 as a whole

Jon: we cover magnification but don't address anything else perceivable in this section.

Kathy: we didn't have any other things – are there others you would add?

Jon: will think about it

B1

Kathy: Alan comment

Jan: was already removed

B2

Kathy: Detlev proposal

Jan: making change

B3

Jan: a way to understand that some people will be simplifying gestures and some people will be doing something different. Also discoverable, but separate section for that

Kathy: this is a place where we could go down a rat hole with lots of information on gestures. How do people feel about keeping it the way it is, more information about gestures, separating into more sections

Jan: Okay with it

Kathy: I'll follow up with Detlev

B4

Kathy: different hand sizes

Jon: flexibility, people using things in different ways. This is further away from where we want to stick. In general we don't want to go too far away from the WCAG success criteria.

Kathy: this document does allow us to put in best practices

Jon: how do we indicate prioritization – if we don't do that how do people understand the severity of these things

Kathy: the first part says people use this in different ways, also sometimes only one hand available, also devices already havework arounds such as i08 shift downwards. maybe that last sentence is a best practice

Jan: gets complicated, reachability on iOS 6+…

Kathy: this is more of a usability thing than anything else, could be convinced to remove this, but wondering if there's some benefit to keeping it but calling it out more as something that would definitely help make the ease of access easier on mobile if people can easily reach certain things and certain modes that are easier when you don't have any workarounds on the device to access things

<Kathy> http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1927

Kathy: usability study on this

Mark: at least grouping related controls together– don't know the best way to word that and it is all around usability but grouping controls that will be used at the same time be near each other

Jon: C4 covers that grouping operable elements together – actually that's different. It could be in B or C.

Kathy: any thoughts on keeping this in, removing it, incorporating it into another section…

Jan: if we are calling out issues to keep in mind I want to say let's keep it, but calling out issues without decent solutions is not that helpful.

Kathy: there is a lot of research right now in usability as far as how to place things – lots of diagrams in this study usability and interaction on mobile

Jon: I think we should keep it in. Help users navigate content potentially. Moving things to the top of screen could affect the reading order. Situation where something is good for one disability and not for another.

Jan: looking at hard okay graphic from link. Right-handed and left-handed large small

Jon: landscape mode too

Kathy: he has those all listed out

Jan: within the thumb reach zone is basically what he is saying

Jon: in addition to swipe gestures – another issue

Kathy: maybe this section needs to be clarified to say more about different ways of interacting, and that there are other considerations

Jan: maybe we want to reference this work and say be careful in your application of it. What we are trying to say is it's actually much more complicated

Kathy: we are out of time. Does anybody want to take a pass at this section and put forth a recommendation for next week?

Jan: a few sentences but it will be a strawman for the group to take up next week

Kathy: we will continue working on some of the sections this week. If you have time there are other sections that need to be fleshed out..

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/01/22 17:19:16 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
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: Kim
Inferring Scribes: Kim
Default Present: Kim_Patch, Kathy_Wahlbin, Marc_Johlic, Jan, [IPcaller]
Present: Kim_Patch Kathy_Wahlbin Marc_Johlic Jan [IPcaller]
Regrets: Detlev_Fisher Alan_Smith
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2015Jan/0014.html
Found Date: 22 Jan 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/01/22-mobile-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]