-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
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
"single pointer" definition not quite accurate? #749
Comments
related to #746 Please comment on 2 & 3 about if path-based gestures needs to be here.
|
i believe the definition is not so much currently defining "single pointer", but "single pointer gesture" here (as it lists all the various interactions that counts as a "gesture", like taps/clicks, path-based movements, etc. if just defining a "single pointer" per se, it should then probably just focus/emphasise that it stands in contrast to multi-pointer (really, multi-touch in practice, as most [possibly all] devices don't allow simulatenous use of different pointers like two mice, of a mouse and a single finger or stylus, or even multiple styluses). so taking it further, if just trying to define "single pointer" (rather than single pointer gestures, which wouldn't be appropriate as the term is referenced from 2.5.2 as well), it probably needs a more fundamental rewrite...
|
maybe then expand that definition (rather than creating another one) to clarify/list
|
note the definition of "pointer" in the Pointer Events specification
https://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/#dfn-pointer This can possibly be leveraged for the definition here as well, prefixing the propsed bits above. so, combining the lot...
|
This makes the case even bigger to extent the name of the definition, so if a pointer is a hardware representation (I also read it this way, that's why I created the issue) the name should become something like: "Single pointer interaction" or "Single pointer gesture" |
also like the one from @detlevhfischer #746 (comment) 'single point activation' |
that would need changes to the two normative SCs that use that definition (though this would be a change that doesn't affect the meaning/applicability of the SCs)
not sure if that's worth all the trouble? |
will it be worth the trouble if we make it way more understandable for all people reading WCAG 2.1 (and lots of time NOT reading the definitions), or leave it as is and may end up with (maybe / at least) more than half of all people getting it wrong? :-) |
if we expand the definition (keeping it under the "single pointer" term) as per #749 (comment) but keep the normative wording in the SCs i think that would still work? just thinking it would meet less resistance from wider AGWG and related standards that have already copied 2.1's SCs wholesale and incorporated them. |
I think a single pointer definition, clarifying the 'point of contact' issue to include indirect contact/cursor position, would be fine and can include single pointer paths, so these SCs could remain as the are.
@awkawk suggested to draw up a list of use cases to enable a wider deliberation of what should (or should not) be included in "path-based". (Is anyone picking up this action?) |
was there any resolution on this particular aspect? happy to do a PR for just the definition wording itself, or the wider changes like "single pointer" to "single pointer interaction" in normative wordings as well... |
we need an update for the definition but no official resolution so far. The wider change to "single pointer interaction" makes it much more clear what we mean but may encounter resistance. (We can change it for 2.2 more easily though with clear reasons and thus we might argue why not now) |
Hi @patrickhlauke, I think an update to the definition to be clear about including mouse pointers is the best approach, a PR would be appreciated. Maybe a bit cut down from your initial suggestion above, e.g:
If it is really clear what a single pointer is, I don't think it needs comparing to multi-pointers. |
a gentle nudge/ping on this and the related PR #809 |
The definition for "single pointer" has had issues for a long time, as it mixes the idea of what is a pointer with the action(s) *performed* using a pointer. See #749 (comment) and the recent #3535 where this is once again causing a non-sequitur
The definition for "single pointer" has had issues for a long time, as it mixes the idea of what a pointer *is* with the action(s) *performed* using a pointer. I originally tried to fix this, but there was no appetite for it once 2.1 was released. However, with 2.2 and the new 2.5.7 Dragging Movement SC, the broken definition is causing actual misunderstandings/illogical non-sequiturs. See #749 (comment) and the recent #3535 where this is once again causing a non-sequitur Closes #3535 (this is effectively a follow-up to #809 which had disambiguated things, but the definition had since been changed further/again to reintroduce the ambiguous wording we have at this point which confuses input with action) This would be applied to WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, unless there is a decision to only apply it to 2.2. EDIT: Also closes #394 <!-- This comment and the below content is programmatically generated. You may add a comma-separated list of anchors you'd like a direct link to below (e.g. #idl-serializers, #idl-sequence): Don't remove this comment or modify anything below this line. If you don't want a preview generated for this pull request, just replace the whole of this comment's content by "no preview" and remove what's below. --> *** <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3536.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Preview</a> | <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/3536/afbf9ee...6c36df1.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Diff</a> --------- Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <[email protected]>
The definition for "single pointer" has had issues for a long time, as it mixes the idea of what a pointer *is* with the action(s) *performed* using a pointer. I originally tried to fix this, but there was no appetite for it once 2.1 was released. However, with 2.2 and the new 2.5.7 Dragging Movement SC, the broken definition is causing actual misunderstandings/illogical non-sequiturs. See #749 (comment) and the recent #3535 where this is once again causing a non-sequitur Closes #3535 (this is effectively a follow-up to #809 which had disambiguated things, but the definition had since been changed further/again to reintroduce the ambiguous wording we have at this point which confuses input with action) This would be applied to WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, unless there is a decision to only apply it to 2.2. EDIT: Also closes #394 <!-- This comment and the below content is programmatically generated. You may add a comma-separated list of anchors you'd like a direct link to below (e.g. #idl-serializers, #idl-sequence): Don't remove this comment or modify anything below this line. If you don't want a preview generated for this pull request, just replace the whole of this comment's content by "no preview" and remove what's below. --> *** <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3536.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Preview</a> | <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/3536/afbf9ee...6c36df1.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Diff</a> --------- Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit a9dbe11)
The definition for "single pointer" has had issues for a long time, as it mixes the idea of what a pointer *is* with the action(s) *performed* using a pointer. I originally tried to fix this, but there was no appetite for it once 2.1 was released. However, with 2.2 and the new 2.5.7 Dragging Movement SC, the broken definition is causing actual misunderstandings/illogical non-sequiturs. See #749 (comment) and the recent #3535 where this is once again causing a non-sequitur Closes #3535 (this is effectively a follow-up to #809 which had disambiguated things, but the definition had since been changed further/again to reintroduce the ambiguous wording we have at this point which confuses input with action) This would be applied to WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, unless there is a decision to only apply it to 2.2. EDIT: Also closes #394 <!-- This comment and the below content is programmatically generated. You may add a comma-separated list of anchors you'd like a direct link to below (e.g. #idl-serializers, #idl-sequence): Don't remove this comment or modify anything below this line. If you don't want a preview generated for this pull request, just replace the whole of this comment's content by "no preview" and remove what's below. --> *** <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3536.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Preview</a> | <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/3536/afbf9ee...6c36df1.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Diff</a> --------- Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit a9dbe11)
The definition for "single pointer" has had issues for a long time, as it mixes the idea of what a pointer *is* with the action(s) *performed* using a pointer. I originally tried to fix this, but there was no appetite for it once 2.1 was released. However, with 2.2 and the new 2.5.7 Dragging Movement SC, the broken definition is causing actual misunderstandings/illogical non-sequiturs. See #749 (comment) and the recent #3535 where this is once again causing a non-sequitur Closes #3535 (this is effectively a follow-up to #809 which had disambiguated things, but the definition had since been changed further/again to reintroduce the ambiguous wording we have at this point which confuses input with action) This would be applied to WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, unless there is a decision to only apply it to 2.2. EDIT: Also closes #394 <!-- This comment and the below content is programmatically generated. You may add a comma-separated list of anchors you'd like a direct link to below (e.g. #idl-serializers, #idl-sequence): Don't remove this comment or modify anything below this line. If you don't want a preview generated for this pull request, just replace the whole of this comment's content by "no preview" and remove what's below. --> *** <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3536.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Preview</a> | <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag/3536/afbf9ee...6c36df1.html" title="Last updated on Mar 8, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC (6c36df1)">Diff</a> --------- Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit a9dbe11)
the (new in 2.1) definition of "single pointer" is, to my mind, not quite accurate.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-single-pointer
noting that a pointer (at least in the Pointer Events sense) also includes mice, which don't have a "contact with the screen" (only in a very abstracted way)
a possible clarification here could be
(or something to that effect)
happy to submit a PR if this sounds like something we'd want to clarify.
as pointer gesture and pointer cancellation SCs (which reference this key term) do apply to mouse already, changing this would likely be an editorial errata?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: