- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:48:45 -0600
- To: "'Li, Alex'" <alex.li@sap.com>, "'Gez Lemon'" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>
If the user triggers multiple window openings then this failure is not triggered. It is also not triggered if the next window opens immediately with no information presented in the middle. This is only triggered when a window opens, then after displaying information for a bit that window is replaced with another - or a new window pops up. We need to make this clearer. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Li, Alex Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:45 PM To: Gez Lemon Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org Subject: RE: Suggestions on Team A homework Hi Gez and team A, Re Failure due to opening a new window as soon as a new page is loaded. I think the way to go about resolving this is to determine first if user trigger of opening multiple windows is allowed. I think all of us would agree that a user triggered of opening multiple windows actually passes 3.2.5 when such event is expected. Keyword here is expected. Of course, you may dispute that. Let's say we agree on the first question. Next logical question is--in the case of 1) User initiated change of context that leads to 2) opening windows #1, 3) opening windows #2, 4) opening windows #3, would the event that take place between event 2 & 3 and 3 & 4 constitute a change of context not trigger by the user when the overall event (event 2 to 4) are all collectively triggered by event 1. The difference is expectation and macro vs micro change of content. Perhaps another way to tackle this is to determine if the entire sequence of events can be considered a change of context. If the user trigger an event and that the following series of events are related to the execution of the initial user decision, the meaning of the content regardless of the number of windows opened does not really change. I think this may be a reasonable path to take if you want to avoid the pop-up ads passing 3.2.1 while keeping a way for people to perform serious business processes over the web. A concrete example is (You may skip to next paragraph if you don't need a business example.) a supermarket manager triggers an order for 100 cases of beer. The system checks to see if a previous order is scheduled to arrive within the time requirements. If not, check if warehouse has inventory. If not, find and select a vendor that can deliver within the time and pricing parameters. Then it handles the financial processes to pay for the beer, block the time in loading dock, allocate staffing to unload and stock, and adjust the inventory projection. All of these tasks may involve multiple user agents accessing multiple systems inside and outside of the company. Regular Joe would never see anything with this level of complexity. But most governments and businesses do millions of transactions like this everyday. I actually simplified this example by a large degree. Pop-ups are unavoidable and expected when multiple systems are linked together using the web. Not all pop-ups are bad. Re Meta refresh-The definition of change of context requires a change of meaning. A page refresh does not always change the meaning of the content. That is why meta refresh in and of itself does not necessarily meet the level of failure by change of context. All best, Alex -----Original Message----- From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:58 AM To: Li, Alex Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org Subject: Re: Suggestions on Team A homework Hi Alex, On 31/01/06, Li, Alex <alex.li@sap.com> wrote: > 3.2.1 Common Failures-Failure due to opening a new window as soon as a new > page is loaded. > Does this somehow suggest that techniques that are supposed to open multiple > windows would fail L1 if they open these windows sequentially? I don't > think the failure should be triggered by page load. Personally, I think that's a failure. > Failure due to opening a pop-up when a user enters text into an input field > - Please leave room for DOS or UNIX command prompt type functionalities. In > other words, the return or enter key may trigger a change of context at > least under some circumstances for good reasons. When a user presses return or enter in a text input box (not textarea), the expected behaviour would be to submit the form. Pressing return or enter shouldn't be considered as entering text, so should allow for your DOS or UNIX style behaviour. > Failure due to using meta refresh - We should either specify that such > update don't always constitute a change of context because only part of the > content is refreshed (stock price, wind speed, for example) or, better yet, > have a separate page to help people understand what constitute as change of > context. Meta refresh refreshes the whole page, not part of it. Best regards, -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 03:48:57 UTC