W3C

– DRAFT –
Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

08 April 2021

Attendees

Present
Detlev, JakeAbma, Kim_patch, Sukriti
Regrets
-
Chair
Kimberly_Patch
Scribe
Kim_patch

Meeting minutes

#mobile-a11y

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bsze5rAu-6tkWBTGyrcm4tdsGvZAaEBBUCDsQZngl2k/edit#gid=39173941

Taking a look at the exercise we've done – first Step in moving the SEs to 3.0

Jake: talking about user needs in the abstract, then applying to orientation – two specific needs.

Jake: user need that might be less specific but not too generic

Detlev: user needs – apply general functional user needs?

Jake: no

Jake: you can say users can operate content, that's very generic. You can also say users Operate content effectively, Users can interact with content. How far do you want to go with user needs. These are already part of the draft document. I just have a lot of trouble giving them the same value of granularity.

Jake: not too specific, not too generic, spot on. This is for keyboard accessibility, for navigable for keyboard

Detlev: so is it that you have a broader user need and then you look at the aspects of keyboard operation, speech and so on or Hierarchy – I still don't understand

Jake: they will probably be tags. So you can just select for filter by input modalities. Success criteria of input modalities user needs should be precedent as opposed to what we have now the benefits. What we do not have right now in success criteria is which general set of user needs or which user needs are present for success criteria in which functional needs are covered – is not there yet

Detlev: it seems for most success criteria they are focused on either single user needs, Colorblindness or keyboard accessibility

Jake: that's not a user need, that's a functional ability. They are functional performance statements they are not User needs.Functional needs list is different from user needs list. Outcome is more like functional need with user needs behind it. Functional need, more personal user needs. They just should be clear

Jake: functional needs list used without vision, then Blindness, peripheral vision

Detlev: so functional needs independent of disability

Jake: Yes but there should be a mapping

Jake: context different user needs – you have different needs when the light is off than when the light is on if you are not blind

<JakeAbma> https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/#collected-user-needs

<JakeAbma> http://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/user-needs-restructure/fast/index.html#collected-user-needs

Some Existing SCs – many of these user needs would apply

Detlev: five guidelines that have been ported over are different granularities

Detlev: would be interesting to see the full granularity of atomic requirements and see how they might map into different groupings, four principles, but also input method, maybe aria labels

Action: Jake to do the exercise for the remaining 2 Mobile SC's on the spreadsheet

<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Do the exercise for the remaining 2 mobile sc's on the spreadsheet [on Jake Abma - due 2021-04-15].

NOTE the change in IRC channel – it's now MATF

Summary of action items

  1. Jake to do the exercise for the remaining 2 Mobile SC's on the spreadsheet
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).

Diagnostics

No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: Kim_patch

Maybe present: Jake