RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I'm probably joining this conversation a bit late, but do have some
thoughts on this topic and I understand the verbiage is often very
difficult to nail down on these requirements. Don't take my comments as
criticisms, as I'm playing devil's advocate for a bit. Dealt too much
lately with folks that over-interpret things and try to require way too
much to the point it gets over-burdensome and prescriptive to anyone trying
to develop any kind of application. Now for my comments...

I am an engineer too, and though I understand what a feedback loop is, I
don't think the term is widely understood and to me it doesn't quite fit as
it isn't really a continuous loop that the user is looking for. They want
to take an action, learn of an issue and correct it - one time, not loop
back again and again which is more of what a feedback loop is about. So
could the term "feedback" be used instead?

Since this is an accessibility requirement being drafted, adding
"accessible" seems a bit redundant.

The suggestion that there be multiple ways of presenting that feedback is
an important one, and maybe it can be simply stated as such using "multiple
ways" or "multiple modalities", but not sure it really makes sense to have
multiple ways/modalities for every single possible action in a UI.

The multiple ways could be in some advisory techniques, unless we really
want to require multiple ways.

And yet another question...should literally "every action" have feedback,
and what kind of feedback? Clicking on a link is an action, the feedback is
new content is loaded and viewable. Would you really need another modality
of feedback for that? I'm just trying to think of possible scenarios where
users of this guidance could misinterpret the requirement and take it much
too far. How do you know you've really done it right and have a basis for
saying you comply when someone else interprets it to mean you need multiple
modalities of feedback on every single thing a user does in the UI?

So my suggested update would be:
   3.5.1 The success or failure of actions should be clearly indicated to
   the user with timely and understandable feedback.

Best regards,

Mary Jo
                    Mary Jo                                                                    
                    IBM Research,                                                              
                    Austin, TX                                                                 
                    512-286-9698 |                                                             
                    Search for                                                                 

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader."
~John Quincy Adams

From: "Rochford, John" <>
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <>
Date: 08/09/2016 06:40 AM
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

Hi Lisa and All,

I agree with E.A.’s suggestion and with Mike’s elaboration of it.


John Rochford
UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health
Twitter: @ClearHelper

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies
of the original message.

From: Michael Pluke []
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 5:42 AM
To: EA Draffan <>; lisa.seeman <>;
public-cognitive-a11y-tf <>
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I fully agree.

I think that, as an engineer, the “accessible feedback loop” gives a clear
strong message about what is needed – and might be referred to from other
success criteria.

Existing WCAG Success Criteria and anything else that we feel needs adding
can cover how the feedback in that loop can be presented – a default
modality, an alternate modality, user-configurable multimodal feedback
(e.g. visual and spoken, visual and haptic, no feedback, etc.).

The definition of “accessible feedback loop” will need to give an
indication of the timeliness of the feedback.

Best regards


From: EA Draffan []
Sent: 09 August 2016 09:56
To: lisa.seeman <>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <>
Subject: RE: Joshue O Connor suggestion

I like it - if we add timely and useful do we have to quantify what we mean
by 'timely' and 'useful'?  Too much of a delay and they do not wait for the
feedback and too complex - it does not help.   It has to be clear but also
useful so the user understands the feedback and can act on it.

3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated to
the user with a timely and useful accessible feedback loop.

Best wishes

Mrs E.A. Draffan
WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103


From: lisa.seeman []
Sent: 08 August 2016 15:26
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <>
Subject: Joshue O Connor suggestion

Joshue O Connor suggested the following change.

  3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated
 to the user and visual rapid feedback should be available. Spoken feedback
 should be a user selectable option.

 Would be better as.

 3.5.1 The success or failure of every action should be clearly indicated
 to the user in an accessible feedback loop.

 The term 'accessible feedback loop'  could be defined in the notes or
 understanding section?

 This would cover multi modal access etc for all disability types.
 I am not sure it is simpler -what does everyone else think

 All the best


Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 21:07:28 UTC