E-mail List Archives
Thread: Native or web?
Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)
From: Barry Hill
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 6:37AM
Subject: Native or web?
No previous message | Next message →
Hi all
If an app is written using html ostensibly for IOS use only, which
guidelines would be most appropriate, WCAG 2.1 or mobile accessibility
guidelines? I think the pertinent question is, is it a native or a web app?
Many thanks.
Cheers
Barry
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 7:35AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 29/01/2019 13:37, Barry Hill wrote:
> If an app is written using html ostensibly for IOS use only, which
> guidelines would be most appropriate, WCAG 2.1 or mobile accessibility
> guidelines? I think the pertinent question is, is it a native or a web app?
The more pertinent question here would be: when you say it's written
using HTML, do you mean it's then packaged/cross-compiled, running
inside a native app shell with a webview, or literally loaded in Safari?
If the latter two, it's still web content shown by a web user agent (in
the case of the webview, a very cut-down one in terms of user controls,
but a user agent nonetheless). If it's cross-compiled and packaged
(using something like PhoneGap), the lines get a bit more blurred
(though I believe fundamentally it's still running inside a webview for
the most part, so still web content).
Also note that there aren't really separate/different mobile
accessibility guidelines per se. There is guidance on how to
apply/interpret WCAG 2.0 (not sure if there's a 2.1 version out yet) for
mobile apps, but fundamentally the (tech agnostic) success criteria
remain the same.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: joe
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 8:37AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi All,
Both WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 apply to and can be tested against mobile apps no
matter how they are coded (xcode, Android studio, other) or whether they are
a native app or an app that contains a webview. The only difference is in
the recommendations to fix issues that are discovered during a review
(native code vs HTML).
Web apps in safari or chrome would follow web-based recommendations for any
issues.
Thankx,
Joe Humbert
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 8:41AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 29/01/2019 15:37, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> The only difference is in
> the recommendations to fix issues that are discovered during a review
> (native code vs HTML).
Not completely: for actual native apps any SCs relating to "In content
implemented using markup languages" don't directly apply.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: glen walker
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 9:42AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
Interestingly enough, if you search for "markup" in WCAG 2.1, only three SC
have that phrase. Two of them are new SC:
- 1.3.6 Identify Purpose (AAA)
- 1.4.12 Text Spacing (AA) (which also mentions "text style properties",
eg CSS)
The only WCAG 2.0 SC that mentions "markup" is:
- 4.1.1 Parsing (A)
4.1.1 is about as close to non-technology-agnostic as it comes because it
mentions "start and end tags", "attributes", and "IDs".
So Patrick is technically correct, but Joe is pretty correct too if you
consider 75 of the 78 SC in WCAG 2.1 are technology agnostic (96%).
Glen
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> On 29/01/2019 15:37, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> > The only difference is in
> > the recommendations to fix issues that are discovered during a review
> > (native code vs HTML).
>
> Not completely: for actual native apps any SCs relating to "In content
> implemented using markup languages" don't directly apply.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
>
From: Barry Hill
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 9:50AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks, Joe and Patrick.
Joe, that's where I was thinking for the app, but I was concerned that it
was an app written for IOS and probably uses java to emulate the gestures
used by a IOS device, but I'm concerned whether or not it will use the VO
gestures. I can't get my hands on it to test it.
Patrick, you've hit the nail on the head there. It is indeed cross-compiled
and packaged as a native app.
As this app is only to be used on IOS devices, could it be that some of the
WCAG 2.1 guidelines go too far, even for level A? Yes, the new ones under
2.1 for mobile will be relevant, but wouldn't the IOS mobile guidelines be
more useful?
Cheers
B
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 9:54AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 29/01/2019 16:42, glen walker wrote:
> Interestingly enough, if you search for "markup" in WCAG 2.1, only three SC
> have that phrase. Two of them are new SC:
>
> - 1.3.6 Identify Purpose (AAA)
> - 1.4.12 Text Spacing (AA) (which also mentions "text style properties",
> eg CSS)
>
> The only WCAG 2.0 SC that mentions "markup" is:
>
> - 4.1.1 Parsing (A)
>
> 4.1.1 is about as close to non-technology-agnostic as it comes because it
> mentions "start and end tags", "attributes", and "IDs".
>
> So Patrick is technically correct, but Joe is pretty correct too if you
> consider 75 of the 78 SC in WCAG 2.1 are technology agnostic (96%).
Am I also technically correct in saying that WCAG - the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines - are meant to apply to "Web Content", and that
native apps are not necessarily "Web Content"? The same way that native
desktop apps also aren't "Web Content"? Sure, you can evaluate them
against those criteria (hence the existence of documents such as
https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/), but per se, WCAG isn't scoped to deal
with native applications
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 10:02AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 29/01/2019 16:50, Barry Hill wrote:
> As this app is only to be used on IOS devices, could it be that some of the
> WCAG 2.1 guidelines go too far, even for level A? Yes, the new ones under
> 2.1 for mobile will be relevant, but wouldn't the IOS mobile guidelines be
> more useful?
My take: WCAG provides reasonably tech agnostic guidelines and success
criteria. Some of them slant a bit towards traditional web content, but
their high level principle is just as valid for native apps. You can
evaluate a native app against WCAG, but in some cases this will need a
bit more of an interpretation (as some web content concepts may not be
immediately translatable to native - e.g. "Page titled", "Bypass
blocks", "Link purpose (in Context)"). Some are arguably not relevant in
the context of an app (I'd argue "Multiple Ways" would be one of those,
and most native apps would fail this unless they offered essentially two
distinct navigation mechanisms). "Language of Page" / "Language of
Parts" gets tricky to test/check. etc.
So, I'd still evaluate against WCAG 2.1, but be prepared to mark some as
not applicable.
And don't see it as an either/or. Also evaluate against iOS mobile
guidelines etc.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 10:55AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
It would depend on what regulations and laws apply in your jurisdiction and
sector. In the US for government and educational institutions, Section 508
standards (among other reqs) identify that WCAG is to be used for web,
software and documents with a few SC exceptions in navigation for software
and documents
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, Vice President of Accessibility at
EverFi, **Board Member and W3C Advisory Committee Rep for Knowbility *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>;
*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* * = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>;*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:02 PM Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> On 29/01/2019 16:50, Barry Hill wrote:
> > As this app is only to be used on IOS devices, could it be that some of
> the
> > WCAG 2.1 guidelines go too far, even for level A? Yes, the new ones
> under
> > 2.1 for mobile will be relevant, but wouldn't the IOS mobile guidelines
> be
> > more useful?
>
> My take: WCAG provides reasonably tech agnostic guidelines and success
> criteria. Some of them slant a bit towards traditional web content, but
> their high level principle is just as valid for native apps. You can
> evaluate a native app against WCAG, but in some cases this will need a
> bit more of an interpretation (as some web content concepts may not be
> immediately translatable to native - e.g. "Page titled", "Bypass
> blocks", "Link purpose (in Context)"). Some are arguably not relevant in
> the context of an app (I'd argue "Multiple Ways" would be one of those,
> and most native apps would fail this unless they offered essentially two
> distinct navigation mechanisms). "Language of Page" / "Language of
> Parts" gets tricky to test/check. etc.
>
> So, I'd still evaluate against WCAG 2.1, but be prepared to mark some as
> not applicable.
>
> And don't see it as an either/or. Also evaluate against iOS mobile
> guidelines etc.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >
From: glen walker
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 11:34AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
My previous comment was more intended to imply that both you and Joe were
correct. As we know, interpreting accessibility can sometimes be
subjective.
However, as far as the name WCAG goes, because WCAG 1.0 was very
web-centric and not technology agnostic, the "Web" in WCAG made sense.
However, when WCAG 2.0 came out, it was (intentionally) made more "generic"
and not web-centric. However, the name WCAG was already there so continued
to be used, even though the guidelines are not intended for web only. They
certainly should be used for non-web content too.
Perhaps someone involved in the specs for both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 could
comment further on the history.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:54 AM Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Am I also technically correct in saying that WCAG - the Web Content
> Accessibility Guidelines - are meant to apply to "Web Content", and that
> native apps are not necessarily "Web Content"?
>
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 11:50AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 29/01/2019 18:34, glen walker wrote:
[...]
> Perhaps someone involved in the specs for both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 could
> comment further on the history.
Well, for what it's worth I've been involved in WCAG 2.1, and I can say
that the "Web Content" part is still meant to mean..."Web". And there's
strong debate about what does or doesn't constitute "Web Content". A
native app is not "Web Content".
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-content means that there's a "user
agent" (commonly read as: browser, or PDF reader, or similar). For
native apps, there's no such thing.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Tue, Jan 29 2019 5:39PM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | Next message →
One trick I use to see if something is a webview or not is to look at the Voice Over rotor settings in iOS when focused on the content in question and see if there are HTML type rotor settings for links, lists, form controls, table, etc. If so you are in a webview.
Jonathan
Jonathan Avila, CPWA
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 office
Visit us online:
Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog
Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!
The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
From: Mohith BP
Date: Thu, Jan 31 2019 1:57AM
Subject: Re: Native or web?
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Barry,
You have mentioned:
"I was concerned that it
was an app written for IOS and probably uses java to emulate the gestures
used by a IOS device, but I'm concerned whether or not it will use the VO
gestures."
It is highly recommended to test with screen reader turned on to
verify that there are no custom gestures created, the gestures are not
interfering with the VO gestures and finally all the actions can be
performed without the specific gestures when screen reader is turned
off as per WCAG 2.1 SC 2.5.1:
2.5.1 Pointer Gestures:
All functionality that uses multipoint or path-based gestures for
operation can be operated with a single pointer without a path-based
gesture, unless a multipoint or path-based gesture is essential.
(Level A)
Note:
This requirement applies to web content that interprets pointer
actions (i.e. this does not apply to actions that are required to
operate the user agent or assistive technology).
Thanks & Regards,
Mohith B. P.
On 1/30/19, Jonathan Avila < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> One trick I use to see if something is a webview or not is to look at the
> Voice Over rotor settings in iOS when focused on the content in question and
> see if there are HTML type rotor settings for links, lists, form controls,
> table, etc. If so you are in a webview.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Avila, CPWA
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> Level Access
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 703.637.8957 office
>
> Visit us online:
> Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog
>
> Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!
>
> The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged
> and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>
>