Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion)

You have to define specifically what “user awareness” means. 

(PS - all links on a page will be triggered by this) 

gregg

> On May 11, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is a proposal :
> Level AA SC:"Changes in content on a Web page made by auto updates or
> as a result of user action  that convey information or indicate an
> action are made with user awareness unless the user has opted to turn
> off notification of such changes".
> 
> This may cover change in content:
> 1. based on filter / sort selections of data already displayed on page or
> 2. addition(+/-) to cart or
> 3. a notification that 'support by chat' is available for this task at hand, or
> 4. results of form submission when they are displayed on same page
> 5. a global error message placed above the form saying "form
> submission failed etc." or a thank you message after completion of a
> multi-step process, or
> 6. on switching from grid view to list view, or
> 7. in data table when sort column is changed, or
> 8. on selecting a different pagination link
> 
> Above are illustrative.
> 
> The Intent doc of Understanding doc should clarify that it does not
> cover changes like:
> change in content as a result of a user  selecting Tab C instead of
> Tab A or opening / closing a menu as these are addressed by 4.1.2
> Nor will it cover clicking a link or button that  opens up a dialog or
> tooltip. These are already covered.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sailesh
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/11/16, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
>> Patrick,
>> About 2 step interaction: It is not me who is asking this as you
>> wrongly conclude.
>> this is what G80 (and H32 / H84) recommend. In suggesting this, my
>> purpose is to point to one method in which 3.2.2 can be met. Notifying
>> user of the expected behavior is another.
>> Sailesh
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/11/16, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2016 16:03, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>>>> Hello Patrickk,
>>>> Yes, for 3.2.2 the notification of expected behavior needs to precede
>>>> the UI component.
>>>> Yes, the Go-button is an older paradigm.
>>>> But UI designers need to realize the accessibility challenge they
>>>> create. And implementing one of these two choices will change the UI
>>>> visually but help accessibility and perhaps usability too. Surely they
>>>> can do something else (that almost certainly may involve a UI design
>>>> change) as long as they do not pose these challenges.
>>> 
>>> Taking the Go button case though, you're not simply asking for a visual
>>> change in the UI - you're asking for an interaction change. You're
>>> asking developers not to use a one-click/one-tap method that works well
>>> for the majority of their users (simply activating a checkbox/radio
>>> button to dynamically filter search/catalogue results) and instead
>>> implementing a two-step method (activating the checkbox/radio button,
>>> then pressing Go). It's a much harder sell.
>>> 
>>>> About search results being silently displayed on the same page after
>>>> activating Go button : Yes the user needs a notification say with
>>>> aria-live / alert and maybe an updated heading or table caption etc.
>>>> If suitable, even moving focus to that content.
>>>> This is akin to error messaging when the presence of a global error
>>>> message above the form is not exposed to an SR.
>>> 
>>> And this brings us back to the point of this thread: WCAG does not have
>>> a provision/SC for this sort of thing.
>>> 
>>>> Visual proximity of  updated content may not matter to SR users but it
>>>> does matter generally as well as for specific PWD user groups.
>>> 
>>> I didn't say that it didn't matter. I said that proximity cannot be used
>>> as a determining factor exactly *because* it doesn't matter for all
>>> users (e.g. SR users), so it would not be a suitable clause to be used
>>> in SC wording.
>>> 
>>>> I agree it is a challenge testing different device sizes, but  it is
>>>> just
>>>> that.
>>>> Usability and accessibility are in reality platform and device size
>>>> specific. Something may work on laptop and responsively say, on
>>>> phones / tablets of certain sizes but not on other sized  phones and
>>>> tablets.
>>> 
>>> I don't dispute that it's a challenge and a reality. But again, this
>>> comes down to having universally testable and determinable clauses in
>>> SCs. I would argue that having an SC which may pass on one screen size
>>> but fail on another - i.e. the pass/fail determination is completely
>>> dependent on the auditor's actual device - is a highly subjective and
>>> brittle basis for an SC that is guaranteed to make the SC completely
>>> useless and uninforceable in practice. "But your honour, when I tested
>>> this site on all our devices, it passed..."
>>> 
>>>> When application / content owner is made aware of this, they need to
>>>> address it if it matters to them.
>>> 
>>> But for that to happen they need consistent and testable criteria to
>>> base their assessment/fixes on. Again, having something that is
>>> device-specific is not the way to go (see also the whole discussion on
>>> touch target sizes in "mm as measured on screen", or large text in
>>> "real-world points as measured on screen").
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>