Success Criterion 2.5.1 - Pointer Gestures - Level A

[JJdeGroot]

WCAG2ICT guidance: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict-22/#pointer-gestures

Share your thoughts for applying to mobile apps as a comment below.

[AlainVagner]

I would keep this as close as possible to WCAG2ICT.

[jha11y]

Notes from 4 September, 2024 Meeting:

[Meeting Minutes 4 September](https://www.w3.org/2024/09/04-matf-minutes.html#2) Joe_Humbert: Summarizes current Github comment activity where Alainvagner expressed desire to keep it as close to WCAG2ICT as possible. Joe_Humbert: What is considered a path-based gesture on mobile? That isn't defined in the original SC nor in WCAG2ICT. Joe_Humbert: Note excludes "actions that are required to operate the user agent". Is the user agent the mobile device/OS? Detlev: Swiping to scroll would be an OS-gesture. If people implement a path-based gesture like to move a slider, to what extent is it acceptable to have alternative conforming options? E.g. slider and additional view that allows selection of possible options from the slider. Joe_Humbert: That would be conformant so long as it isn't a path-based gesture. Detlev: Basic swiping would not be a path-based gesture. Joe_Humbert: [https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/pointer-gestures.html](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/pointer-gestures.html) Jamers: Path-based gesture is defined in the 2.5.1 Understanding document. Examples include swiping through carousels where the direction matters. I suggest we diverge from WCAG2ICT on this and link to the Understanding document with its definition.: Illai +1 Jamie Jamers: We could add a note or link to the Understanding document since it's better defined there. Joe_Humbert: I think wCAG2ICT didn't link to it because 2.2 doesn't link to the Understanding doc. Maybe this is a good question to ask the other working group - why they didn't define it in 2.2. but did in the Understanding doc. Jamers: I'm suggesting that there's more guidance in WCAG documentation than WCAG2ICT that we can point people to. I know the Understanding doc only expands on normative text but in this case it's helpful. Joe_Humbert: Not sure if it's better to define terms in our documentation or add a note to this SC. Joe_Humbert: One issue is that the Understanding doc mentions swipes. What is a swipe, and are some OS gestures swipes which are exempt? GleidsonRamos: I don't think swipe is a path-based gesture, I think the intent is more about drag & drop functionality. I don't agree with the exception for user agent. Joe_Humbert: We can't change the original SC langauge but we could add a note to explain further. Joe_Humbert: Will keep this topic in next meeting agenda

[jha11y]

Notes from 11 September, 2024 Meeting:

[Meeting Minutes 11 September](https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-matf-minutes.html#t01) Joe: added the discussion from the last meeting to https://github.com/w3c/matf/issues/37, SC 2.5.1 Julian: will send out the updates the way JJ sent it on an email ACTION: Julian send out SCs for voting Jamie: except the WCAG2ICT notes (as discussed in the prior meeting) julianmka: WCAG2ICT --> Question related to notes. Notes are specifically about non-web software. Wishes to discuss those notes AlainVagner: I would remove anything related to non-web documents julianmka: The additional notes that come with the SC in WCAG2ICT . Should we bring to these back to MATF draft? There are three notes added by the WCAG2ICT team. Earlier comment was for 2.5.1 AlainVagner: we should remove everything not related to applications Jamie: sSggest to add understanding document to this SC as a note Jamie: expand more on "definitions" from the WCAG2ICT document. Joe_Humbert: Include a section if we are adding definitions, or re-defining something. Joe_Humbert: to add defintion for 'path based gestures' and 'swiping' ACTION: Add future agenda item for defining path-based gestures and swipes julianmka: can rewrite the notes using preferred language Joe_Humbert: should we have APPLYING SC section in our doc? ACTION: Julian add proposed wording to 2.5.1 julianmka: reasonable to have a heading 'applying SC' if there are deviations. julianmka: if there are no deviations, the doc may get bloated. ACTION: come up with a agreeable structure julianmka: @Illai It is worth having references, but not required for each SC. Joe_Humbert: instead of a separate section, if we can collapse it in a sentence if it is applicable as is. ACTION: Joe_Humbert to discuss with Jamie julianmka to come up with an agreeable structure