search

w3c / matf

Other
5 stars 0 forks source link

Success Criterion 1.3.3 - Sensory Characteristics - Level A #24

Open JJdeGroot opened 1 week ago

JJdeGroot commented 1 week ago

Discussion:

MATF meeting on July 3, 2024 [Source](https://www.w3.org/2024/07/03-matf-minutes.html#t02) Do we have any bad examples of failures of 1.3.3 failures? Sorry examples of failures They don't have to be bad I suppose line charts are good examples here jj: don't see this happening too often. Tabbar without text, where the selected tab has another color. I like the Tab Bar example Android charts are a nightmare jj: not so many charts, Android charts are difficult to make accessible SongBirdCharts is a good resource if folks are interested, but it's old GleidsonRamos: link with iOT, control the lights of the house. Use sensory characterictits to show if sth is on or off jj: if you are blind, could be difficult to know if the lights are on or off I love https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/sensory-characteristics.html - great discussion around it agree to adding haptics to the list Joe_Humbert: what we could add to this def is haptic feedback, it is a sensory characteristic. Joe_Humbert: more used on mobile devices as on desktop jj: open list, haptics could be on this list jj: cannot think of any example where there is only haptics jj: maybe there are some examples there I think it's still good to add because devs may not realise that not all devices have haptics or even haptics enabled Where ICT is non-web software that provides a user interface, it shall satisfy the WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics AlainVagner: in EN 301 549 they haven't added anything to this criterion it could be as simple as just an matf note to 1.3.3 to specifically mention haptics? Detlev: in the european Norm there are some SC in section 5 about physical characteristics https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.02.01_60/en_301549v030201p.pdf#page=23 Detlev: we could check those things, in table A.2 for mobile apps +1 to Joe jj: could be a note jamie: should be thinking about adding techniques? they are not available in the WCAG understanding document jj: techniques are meant for the web. jamie: could we push to have more inclusive techniques jamie: our document could include techniques, at least discuss how haptics could be used in an accessible way jamie: in a non prescriptive way but as a guidance jj: could be difficult on the same document, but could be done Joe_Humbert: reach out to WCAG3 group, working on this kind of stuff, we could reuse the existing work Joe_Humbert: things that we could review and fill the gaps jj: WCAG 3 transforming to be more platform agnostic jj: outcomes more platform agnostic https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#haptic-stimulation jj: agree would be great to learn if they are really considering native mobile jj: setup a meeting with WCAG2ICT, to discuss issues raised in our group, like set of software WCAG 3.0 does include haptics jj: see how we could backport some of our guidance to WCAG2ICT WCAG2ICT should realistically have haptics as well jj: more collaboration is needed here with the other groups, as mentioned in our work statement detlev: active in WCAG3. just good to know that it will take some time. Not yet at the stage where they are writing techniques. the active group is quite small Detlev: good to do sth on techniques, if there is a clear way to test on mobile sth? *something (sorry globish abbreviation) jj: agrees Detlev: other groups want to avoid scope creep jj: would be nice to reach consensus on some SC can we move to the next agenda item? jj: mentions appt.org and ?? other resources

Summary:

  1. Examples of Failures for 1.3.3:

    • Quintinb: Inquired about examples of failures for SC 1.3.3.
    • JJ: Mentioned the challenge with tab bars without text where the selected tab has a different color.
    • Quintinb: Liked the tab bar example and noted that Android charts are difficult to make accessible.
    • Gleidson Ramos: Provided an example related to IoT, such as controlling lights with sensory characteristics.

  2. Inclusion of Haptics:

    • Quintinb, Joe Humbert: Agreed on adding haptic feedback as a sensory characteristic, noting it is more common on mobile devices.
    • JJ: Open to including haptics in the guidelines, though finding exclusive haptic examples is challenging.
    • Alain Vagner: Mentioned that EN 301 549 has not added anything to this criterion.
    • Detlev: Referred to physical characteristics in the European Norm and suggested checking table A.2 for mobile apps.
    • Jamie: Suggested adding non-prescriptive techniques for haptics to provide guidance on their accessible use.

  3. Collaboration with WCAG3 Group:

    • Joe Humbert: Recommended reaching out to the WCAG3 group to review and possibly reuse existing work related to haptics.
    • JJ: Noted that WCAG 3 is transforming to be more platform-agnostic and outcomes should reflect this.
    • Jamie: Shared a link to WCAG 3.0, which includes haptics.
    • Detlev: Emphasized the need for more collaboration but warned of potential delays as WCAG3 is still in early stages.

  4. Development of Techniques:

    • Jamie: Proposed that MATF could develop and include techniques for mobile accessibility, even if not prescriptive.
    • JJ: Agreed but noted that it could be challenging within the same document. Suggested discussing how to backport some guidance to WCAG2ICT.
    • Detlev: Supported the idea but highlighted the importance of clear testing methods for mobile techniques.