Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Accessibility Checklist #182

Closed
w3cbot opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Accessibility Checklist #182

w3cbot opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
close? needs-resolution Issue the Accessibility Group has raised and looks for a response on. s:orientation-event missing link wg:das https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/das

Comments

@w3cbot
Copy link

w3cbot commented Jan 29, 2024

This is a tracker issue. Only discuss things here if they are a11y group internal meta-discussions about the issue. Contribute to the actual discussion at the following link:

§ w3c/deviceorientation#131

@w3cbot w3cbot added pending Issue created by the tracker tool and may need to be refined s:orientation-event missing link tracker Group bringing to attention of a11y, or tracked by the a11y Group but not needing response from a11y labels Jan 29, 2024
@niklasegger
Copy link

niklasegger commented Feb 7, 2024

TLDR: API/Feature is opt-in which mitigates some concerns, but an accessibility section is still important, as it affects people with motor impairments. Could use WCAG 2.5.1 and WCAG 2.5.2 as inspiration for that.

Longer version:
As far as I understand the permission policy correctly, the API requires the relevant powerful features to be activated by the user. Which in turn mitigates some concerns as it is opt-in.

Nevertheless I think an accessibility section is essential, as this API/feature could lead to challenges and risks for people with motor impairments. As the physical device must be moved/tilted to use it.

In certain scenarios, these features can of course be essential, for example in a game. For functionalities that are not necessarily dependent on this API, such as the use case example with clearing the web form, I think that the WCAG 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures and WCAG 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation criteria can be used as a guide. In other words, there must be an accessible alternative and maybe it should also be possible to undo these inputs.

@w3cbot w3cbot added the wg:das https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/das label Feb 9, 2024
@matatk matatk added needs-resolution Issue the Accessibility Group has raised and looks for a response on. and removed pending Issue created by the tracker tool and may need to be refined labels Feb 11, 2024
@matatk
Copy link

matatk commented Feb 11, 2024

Thank you @niklasegger; this is great feedback!

I agree with your feedback, and it chimes with the group discussion - you're right that the WCAG SCs provide inspiration for a solution. I think the WCAG SCs are very specific to their input devices, so would be out of scope here (but a good inspiration, as you said.)

Also relevant to the discussion: specific minutes from APA teleconference on 2024-01-31

Summarising both @niklasegger's comments, and the minutes, we will be asking for an accessibility considerations section (and will offer to help draft it). Here are the various things that we should point out to the developers who are building things with the spec:

  • It's important for alternative means of providing the input to be available (this is inspired by WCAG 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures), e.g.

    • For games, supporting a game controller (or keyboard/mouse input).

    • For web apps, providing UI, such as a button, menu command, and/or keyboard shortcut, to perform the feature.

  • It's important that users can undo any accidental input - particularly important for people with tremors. (This is inspired by WCAG 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation.)

There are two further things that are out of scope of things built with the spec, but may be most helpful for developers to understand the context:

  • It's also important that the user would be able to turn off the use of this API - e.g. for users with tremors. This could be done by declining permission, or changing a browser or OS setting.

  • It's also important that the device's orientation can be locked (per @JaninaSajka) - a primary use case being someone who is interacting with a touch device, such as a phone, non-visually. They may have built up 'muscle memory' as to where things are in the layout, and having the layout shift would break their ability to navigate. Again, this would most likely be at OS level.

Thanks for the input so far. I will make the request to the DAS WG - but any additional feedback is welcome on this thread.

@w3cbot w3cbot removed the tracker Group bringing to attention of a11y, or tracked by the a11y Group but not needing response from a11y label Feb 12, 2024
@matatk
Copy link

matatk commented Feb 12, 2024

I posted some feedback on the HR spec review request thread (not the accessibility checklist issue, linked from this thread - because the group requested a review).

@w3cbot w3cbot added the close? label May 29, 2024
@matatk matatk closed this as completed Dec 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
close? needs-resolution Issue the Accessibility Group has raised and looks for a response on. s:orientation-event missing link wg:das https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/das
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants