Input events 2024-11-21 > 2024-12-19

[siusin]

In the issue title above add the document name followed by the date of this request, then the date of your proposed deadline for comments.

• name of spec to be reviewed: Input Events Level 2

• URL of spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/WD-input-events-2-20241018/

• What and when is your next expected transition?
  CR, 2024-12-19

• What has changed since any previous review?
  Please look at the list of normative changes since 2018 at: Horizontal Review of Input events input-events#166

• Please point to the results of your own self-review (see https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/checklist.html)

• Where and how to file issues arising?
  https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/new/choose
  Thank you!

• Pointer to any explainer for the spec?
  Previous A11y Review: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2017Feb/0016.html

Other comments:
we would appreciate your guidance on the issue related to Assistive Technologies (AT):
w3c/input-events#51 (comment)

[ruoxiran]

hi xiaoqian, we need more time to review this document, see minutes at: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/04-apa-minutes.html#84d9

[ruoxiran]

relevant review history includes:
an issue at: w3c/input-events#51 (comment)
an email comment from Michael Cooper at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2017Feb/0016.html
wiki tracker of APA at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Input_Events_Level_2

[matatk]

As part of our review, we found that the two major issues mentioned in Michael's email (that @ruoxiran linked above) were filed:

• Function notifications for AT input-events#51
  • Requirements for AT Support input-events#74 flagged as a duplicate (though it does contain some additional links to discussion minutes).
• Programmatic methods for alternate input solutions input-events#52

These were discussed further on an APA call, as noted in the APA review-tracking Wiki page that @ruoxiran linked above.

Update 2025-01-17: We also found minutes from TPAC 2017 in which an Editing AAM was discussed—though it seems there were some concerns as to whether an AAM was appropriate in this case, and my speculation on why the work doesn't seem to've progressed is that maybe the way different platforms behave (especially in relation to behaviour around text suggestions) might vary too much for standardisation.

[matatk]

Hi @siusin. Thanks for your review request, and apologies for our delayed response. We have reviewed the changes in the latest spec, and we don't have any concerns; we're happy for this spec to advance.

You noted the historical issues APA filed on notifications for AT that certain text editing operations had occurred (w3c/input-events#51 and w3c/input-events#52). We feel that, in the past several years, and with the rise of auto-suggestions, it would be appropriate to also consider signals about suggestions being available, and whether any suggestions had been automatically applied.

There were several discussions on the topic of providing AT with notifications about these things, but it doesn't seem that any specific standardisation work was done. Looking back now, we wonder if the reason for this may be variability across OSes with respect to their behaviour, and APIs around text editing and auto-suggestions. Is that something on which you have any thoughts or experience?

We'll continue to make enquiries around these two issues separately; APA is happy for your publication to proceed as planned.