Update definition for single pointer

[patrickhlauke]

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

---

Preview | Diff

[benja11y]

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.

See #749 (comment) and the recent #3535 where this is once again causing a non-sequitur

Closes #3535

Preview | Diff

Not sure the new definition catches everything, such as joysticks, light pens or 'simulated' versions of pointer (think Dragon's mousegrid feature) for example. Will try to come up with a catch-all.

[patrickhlauke]

@benja11y it doesn't need to be comprehensive ... I rejigged it so it doesn't give the impression that it's an exhaustive list

[benja11y]

Changed my - to a +

[detlevhfischer]

Looks good to me.

[bruce-usab]

On deck for 1/23 call.

[bruce-usab]

From the call 1/12, in no particular order.

• @gundulaniemann preferred current definition to the change proposed.
• No one disagreed that the current definition is not very good.
• There seemed to be general consensus about adding "— such as a mouse" as having explanatory utility. But probably additional examples (as part of the defined term) are too much.
• @dav-idc noted that "on screen" could be taken too literally (as physical). Eye gaze is an example of single pointer where nothing is touched.
• @dbjorge noted that "one point at a time" could be understood as only covering the start of an interaction (e.g. mouse-down event).

[patrickhlauke]

@alastc @mbgower @bruce-usab et al ... updated the definition to incorporate some of the suggestions/feedback from yesterday's WCAG 2.x backlog meeting

[bruce-usab]

Very clean edit, thanks!

[bruce-usab]

We had significant discussion 1/19 call, but wording was not finalized. My few notes:

• SC mention of "point" can be read to mean a single pixel.
• "multi-touch scenarios" is confusing.
• AT presents as a mouse, so that is not a conflating issue.
• Some SC definitions include examples (block) which might be a good option.
• Preference is to keep definition work as copy/paste, but that can be just the first sentence of defined term.
• SC provide some context which might take some of load off the defined term. For example, 2.5.1 exception includes (undefined) term "multipoint" so it follows that "multipoint" need not be part of definition for single pointer.

[patrickhlauke]

As a possible alternative, I've moved the mention of multipoint (rather than "multi-pointer/multi-touch") into a note (following precedent set in other definitions that also include a note and/or example).

[bruce-usab]

Looks fine to me, but is normative change, so will want to highlight that for AG review.

[mraccess77]

Single point on the screen/page could be interpreted by some as single pixel (x,y) point - is this always the case?

[patrickhlauke]

@mraccess77

is this always the case?

what situations are you thinking of where this is not the case?

[dav-idc]

Single point on the screen/page could be interpreted by some as single pixel (x,y) point - is this always the case?

A single point on a screen can be made up of several pixels, such as in the case of a retina display. Hence, it's helpful to not say specifically a pixel, but rather a point.

The only case I can reasonably think of where it's not an x,y point (but not necessarily a single pixel) is in a 3D display system where it might be an x,y,z point. But I think this updated definition still covers current 3d technologies, where an x,y,z point is still delivered through a screen.

[alastc]

@iadawn this went through CFC, so needs adding as an errata. (That's been a Staff task so far, I'm not sure where it is edited?) We'll keep it on the project board until that's confirmed.

[patrickhlauke]

hurrah!