W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Further discussion on Change of Content SC

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 21:47:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9CqrGsvO3qQfS2kVTk79KC9znp+PPSSBc=_WuQ9-aJHgA7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello Andrew,
>Just because WCAG 2.0 contemplated something doesn’t mean that there isn’t a need >for improvements.
>The content is perceivable, if you go looking for it, but that’s the point - users don’t >always know about it.

Those are the types of changes in content contemplated by WCAG 2.0 in
the definition of 'change of context'.
Were these not be addressable by one or more SCs in WCAG 2.0, surely
an SC would have been included in that recommendation.

>User may not know it is there, that’s how it differs from controls with built-in notification >apparatus.

Not sure what you mean by controls with built in apparatus.
Using role=dialog is one method of making popups perceivable to AT users.
One could also simply toggle aria-hidden=true on the parent container
and only expose the popup content with suitable structural markup till
the user dismissed the popup. That too would make content perceivable
without using role. With such markup in place a user will know where
to find result of specific action.
In the case of short text messages conveying result of user action
too, one could also place an off-screen (or visible) heading  like
'Form Status:' or 'Shopping cart status:' on page load and place the
result of form submission / cart updation  following that heading.
This exposes info-relationship and structure and sufficient to pass
WCAG 2.0. But just as using role=dialog is preferable, using
role=alert (or aria-live) is preferred for the update text messages.
So does this also qualify as a 'control with builtin apparatus'?
For the modal or the result of update, SC 1.3.1 kicks in too.

After much deliberation the WG approved ARIA18/19  as sufficient for
current WCAG 2.0 SC(s). Here too, content is being  added on user
action.
So I do not understand the resistance for using such ARIA markup  for
similar cases  now being discussed under 3.2.7 description.

In the Understanding 3.2.7 refer to '• When a graphical spinning
"busy" signal notifies visual users'.
SC 1.1.1 will kick in if the img had no suitable alt and SC 1.3.2 if
it is not in the expected reading flow.

In other words the more I dwell on this and read the Intent  /
description for 3.2.7, I do not see why existing WCAG 2.0 SCs cannot
be applied to content added as result of user action.

Andrew I am looking at  Issue#2
(https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/2) and the SC text does not have
"or that conveys information" ... it is in the page title though.
In any case, the description for the SC does not describe situations
like weather updates you brought up. So we can defer that discussion.

Objection #2:
You replaced the words 'driving reason' for what I stated: The form
control does not trigger the  new content but is the cause of it.
If  the exception#1  requires some editing, I suppose the objection I
raised is not unjustified.

Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh


On 6/7/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>So it is
>>contemplated by WCAG 2.0 and is expected to be evaluated using WCAG
>>2.0.
>
> Just because WCAG 2.0 contemplated something doesn’t mean that there isn’t a
> need for improvements.
>
>>About auto weather updates: it is not what is being discussed.  It is
>>not based on user action.
>
> The SC says "Programmatic notification is provided for each change of
> content that indicates a user action was taken or that conveys information”
>
> So, for example,
> A user clicks a link and the link brings in a new section of content into
> the page (user action)
> Or
> A weather page loads updated weather information on some schedule (conveying
> new information)
>
> Both are included.
>
>>If it is not a new page (like effect of activating a link) but content
>>added on the same page then that content should be perceivable.
>
> The content is perceivable, if you go looking for it, but that’s the point -
> users don’t always know about it.
>
>>If a popup opens up like a modal, and goes undetected by the SR
>>because of deficient markup (i.e. no role )it is a failure, right?
>
> Yes, that would be a 4.1.2 failure.
>
>>Likewise if some text is displayed somewhere above the form or
>>products one can add to cart, that content should be perceivable. Its
>>role and info-relationship needs to be available to AT users too. I do
>>not see why one needs to distinguish this from the popup or modal
>>case.
>
> User may not know it is there, that’s how it differs from controls with
> built-in notification apparatus.
>
>>Applying 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 2.4.3 and 4.1.2  as needed are sufficient to
>>expose new content added to a page based on user input.
>
> Do my responses above help you think differently about this?
>
>>
>>About Objection#2: The JS code is attached to the submit button  and
>>the button  is the trigger. The code examines all form controls and
>>places error messages for failed fields. The code is not attached to
>>the individual form controls in this case and they are not triggers.
>
> As I said, perhaps “trigger” isn’t the right word. The individual form
> control provides the driving reason for the error and that is where the
> linkage for the new content needs to be attached.
>
> AWK
>
>>
>>Thanks and best wishes,
>>Sailesh
>>
>>
>>On 6/7/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>Objection #1:I pointed to the definition of 'change of context'
>>>>because it covers content changes  being discussed in the proposed SC
>>>>3.2.7. So this has not been overlooked by normative WCAG 2.0.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the “changes of context” definition includes an indication that
>>> changes of content are not always changes of context.
>>>
>>>>One can and needs to apply the same SCs to  content added to the page
>>>>as a result of user action just as one applies them to the content on
>>>>page load.
>>>>That new content  must have markup to satisfy 1.3.1 and be in the
>>>>reading / navigation order.
>>>
>>> Sure, agreed.
>>>
>>>>The semantics, info-relationship of the new content should be marked
>>>>up by assigning a suitable role / aria-live property ... more
>>>>important if the content precedes the reading / nav order.
>>>>ARIA19  refers to 'There are also a number of special case live region
>>>>roles which can be used instead of applying live region properties
>>>>directly'.
>>>>A global form level error message  is related to the entire form and
>>>>the relation can be exposed if it is assigned a role / aria-live
>>>>property.
>>>
>>> So on an HTML web page does everything that is added after page load need
>>> to
>>> use aria-live in order to meet 4.1.2?
>>>
>>> If I have a weather page and there is a content section that is updated
>>> every 10 minutes with the new weather, what SC requires that it use
>>> aria-live to notify the end user?
>>>
>>>>Same is true of  error messages displayed  instantly as one navigates
>>>>to the next form field or a message that says  an item has been added
>>>>to cart, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Objection #2:
>>>>Which control is the first exception referring to:
>>>>"a programmatically determined relationship between the new content
>>>>and the control that triggers it”.
>>>>I understand the trigger to be the  submit button for the form is it
>>>> not?
>>>>The form control does not trigger the  new content but is the cause of
>>>> it.
>>>>This SC requires an association with the submit button as per my
>>>> reading.
>>>
>>> I wouldn’t think that in your case that the submit button “triggers” it -
>>> it
>>> is the validation issue on a control that triggers the message. This
>>> could
>>> be clarified, I agree.
>>>
>>>>My suggestion:
>>>>That's why I believe  the content changes contemplated by 3.2.7
>>>>(barring continual changes type) do not require a new SC.
>>>>Content needs to be added to Understanding doc and techniques doc.
>>>>For instance, ARIA19 can be broadened to say how  roles (not natively
>>>>available) can be applied to convey  semantics and info relationships.
>>>
>>> I’m still seeing a gap. I agree that many form/UI component-based
>>> scenarios
>>> are covered by 4.1.2, there is a lot of content that isn’t covered by
>>> 4.1.2.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks very much,
>>>>
>>>>Sailesh Panchang
>>>>
>>>>On 6/7/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sailesh,
>>>>> I’m not sure what to record. David had indicated that this is broader
>>>>> than
>>>>> the requirements for 4.1.2, and in fact the first exception states
>>>>> "There
>>>>> is
>>>>> a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and
>>>>> the
>>>>> control that triggers it;” which pretty much means that if you have a
>>>>> form
>>>>> control with a validation message that comes up when the control is in
>>>>> an
>>>>> error state and that is programmatically associated with the control
>>>>> then
>>>>> that new content doesn’t need to meet 3.2.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are about changes of context. That may or may not be
>>>>> related
>>>>> to new content on the page.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that these issues have been discussed and as a result I didn’t
>>>>> think
>>>>> that there was an objection. If I misinterpreted and there is an
>>>>> objection,
>>>>> please clarify what the specific objection is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> AWK
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>
>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C31c3c2ec9ece4a8cc00d08d4adcc7acc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324541121982082&sdata=yJHa7azH%2B4%2B04a7wVF71U%2FQ6wyqwcij4hce3hJBmPSk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/17, 10:43, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Kindly record this following comment  as part of the CFC as the
>>>>>>concerns raised by me on this thread have not been addressed.
>>>>>>Content on a Web page  changing in response to user action is not new.
>>>>>>This is a characteristic of dynamic pages and has been around for a
>>>>>>dozen years plus.
>>>>>>WCAG 2.0  covers dynamic content. This is   referenced in the
>>>>>> normative
>>>>>> text:
>>>>>>1. Changes of context cover content changes "if made without user
>>>>>>awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire
>>>>>>page simultaneously". So 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 address some types of dynamic
>>>>>>content.
>>>>>>2. SC 4.1.2 covers another block : "notification of changes to these
>>>>>>items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are a couple of  ARIA techniques that  reference WCAG 2 SC for
>>>>>>added content:
>>>>>>ARIA18: Using role="alertdialog" creates a notification.
>>>>>>ARIA19: Using ARIA role=alert or Live Regions to Identify Errors
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, David's last email above notes: "I can see the rational for
>>>>>>added content to components in 4.1.2".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Therefore one really may need to apply one or more of the existing SCs
>>>>>> to evaluate the new content added to a page as a result of user
>>>>>>action. One can apply 4.1.2 / 3.3.1  as ARIA 18/19 suggest  as well as
>>>>>>ensure compliance with 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 2.4.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 as the
>>>>>>situation demands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks and best wishes,
>>>>>>Sailesh Panchang
>>>>>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>>>>>Deque Systems Inc
>>>>>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>>>>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/6/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> AGWG’ers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we have received substantially positive feedback leading up to
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> CfC,
>>>>>>> this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition, in response to comments we will also add a reviewer
>>>>>>> note
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> SC to clarify that there are outstanding questions that the Working
>>>>>>> Group
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> interested in additional feedback on related to how to best handle
>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>> with continual changes of content such as games and simulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This decision will be recorded at
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=NpU%2Ftgyleg9wb4ClVZ1tX7ABDoBosmC6QSjC98Gz%2Bb8%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> AWK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=6PJFjS%2FhTN6E24pDZ0KDhN%2FQBvbv5lZDv9XtJheCI%2Fk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>> <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 13:12
>>>>>>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>>>>> Subject: CFC: Change of Content SC
>>>>>>> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>>>>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 13:13
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday June 1rd at 1:00pm Boston time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Working Group has reviewed and approved a new Success Criterion
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> inclusion in the Editor’s Draft: Change of Content, at level AA,
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Survey results:
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FSCreview_May_17%2Fresults%23xq10&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=xsPnBmJ2rktgbc2zuQSJZUWCeqwNyKO37fWxRmNWk9s%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FSCreview_May_17%2Fresults%23xq10&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=Okf0JE8v9L3KHEtTV1WoBkkynnQOt01S72abhaualTk%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>> Call minutes:
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F05%2F30-ag-minutes.html%23item04&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=Q6WZlzTLBDzVOua1WgqnBTCXorj4hB8mX8FwHe2meKo%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F05%2F30-ag-minutes.html%23item04&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=%2F3FA5IQMojJ3KxpURZeEw9kaQaai2PlZ7n7liDnuPiQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fchange-of-content_ISSUE-2%2Fguidelines%2F%23change-of-content&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=zjk6w2LH%2FG8ZuuQ1EAqBTeXdopPfHNs8tqr%2BK33vcNQ%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fchange-of-content_ISSUE-2%2Fguidelines%2F%23change-of-content&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=yJZ%2FnwEScLAYTlwQ2eZ4cxPEWU6dl6rRGhwGyCo2rcs%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you
>>>>>>> “not
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> CfC
>>>>>>> deadline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> AWK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=6PJFjS%2FhTN6E24pDZ0KDhN%2FQBvbv5lZDv9XtJheCI%2Fk%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=WXIOlDgSmjs8RA701PHIwW2a41iGdgiljy4cZ6ePY9w%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> AWK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=6PJFjS%2FhTN6E24pDZ0KDhN%2FQBvbv5lZDv9XtJheCI%2Fk%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=WXIOlDgSmjs8RA701PHIwW2a41iGdgiljy4cZ6ePY9w%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Sailesh Panchang
>>>>>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>>>>>Deque Systems Inc
>>>>>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>>>>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Sailesh Panchang
>>>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>>>Deque Systems Inc
>>>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Sailesh Panchang
>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>Deque Systems Inc
>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>


-- 
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
Mobile: 571-344-1765
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2017 01:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 June 2017 01:47:56 UTC