Re: Looking at SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation with "UI Context"

On Jul 13, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Peter Korn wrote:

> Hi Gregg,
> 
> PK: OK, so we focus now on the consistent navigation part.  My understanding is that a single User Interface Context can include multiple, non-modal windows. 

GV: yep
(PS this is a very useful way to do this)
 
> Thus if I have two windows in my UIC, and both of them contain navigation buttons (e.g. "Next" & "Previous"), and they were in different orders, they would not be in violation of this SC (with UIC). 

GV:  Not at that moment.  (This is what I call an extreme example that is unlikely and is constructed to test something -- but OK -- for the moment it would pass)    But when you open the window on another document tomorrow it would be a new UI Context because the information would  be different.  And at that point you would be in conflict with either instance one or instance two. 

> However, if instead we used language from the consensus text for 2.4.2 Page Titled and tied this to "top-most explicit groupings of user interface components (things like "windows", "dialog boxes", "frames", and "screens")", then our pair of windows with the inconsistent relative order of "Next" and "Previous" WOULD be a violation of the SC.

GV:  already covered as above without using this long and indeterminate language.   I understand it but I think it would lose many people.  And one can probably come up with many ambiguous examples here.   But the real point is - why use a long text string with embedded example list (not a good idea in standards) when you have a simpler concept and term that can be used? 

> 
> First question to Gregg: do you agree with my reading of the definition of UIC, and my application of it to this SC & this situation?

GV:  No.   You did find a way to temporarily conform with a not nice example.  But I don't think you fully understood UI Context.  We have added a note to make it clearer.   But your example fails with both UI context and your longer text. 
> 
> Second question: which outcome do you think we want?  Should the "Next" | "Prev" in showing non-modal window A while "Prev" | "Next" showing in non-modal window B be allowed or not?

GV:  clearly not -- and it isn't with either. 

This one is trickier than usual  (the whole UI Context - or any of our terms/concepts --  and software) because windows are used both for palettes - and navigation is the same for both.   But with repeated use - everything falls out and works. 


> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 7/13/2012 1:50 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Peter
>>  - yep  you were right - I had my SC numbers switched.   I fixed my comments now to fit this one. 
>> 
>> new comments marked   
>> GV2:  
>> 
>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Peter Korn wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Gregg,
>>> 
>>>>> <PK> Hi gang,
>>>>> 
>>>>> SC 3.2.3 was not one we reached consensus on, nor have we had much discussion about it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My thoughts on that can be found at the Applying UI Context page in the seventh row, but to facilitate discussion, I reiterate them here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The software portion of the UIC Proposal is:
>>>>> This applies to software aspects of products directly as written and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG (above) with the word “user interface context” substituted for Web Page and "software program" substituted for "Set of Web Pages".
>>>>> I don't think this SC really make sense in software.
>>>> 
>>>> GV: I don't follow you here.   It makes lots of sense to me.   This says that if you have two controls that do the same thing that they should be named consistently.     It is always done with good design. (But then many of the SC would be met with good design).   The purpose is to avoid bad design.  
>>> 
>>> PK: The text of the SC is:
>>> Success Criteria 3.2.3: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user. (Level AA)
>>> 
>>> I don't read that as "controls that DO the same thing should be NAMED consistently", I read it as (a) only applying to navigational mechanisms, and (b) speaking to their relative order on the screen (or web page).
>> 
>> GV2:  you are correct.  I crossed my wires on the access provisions.   This is just about order.   3.2.4 is about naming. 
>>> 
>>> I very much like your reading, but I see your reading as doing exactly what I argue for this (and a few other) SC: going back to Understanding and Intent and apply the purpose to software rather than a straight language substitution.  The straight language substitution (abbreviated) reads:
>>> 
>>> Success Criteria 3.2.3: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on [user interface contexts] within a [software application] occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user. (Level AA) 
>> GV2:  yes - and it works very well here.  Clear and correct. 
>> 
>> If people just think of  UI Context as  "everything they see when using an app (if windows aren't overlapping) "  then they have a good picture of what UIC is.  
>> 
>>> So if I have things like "next" and "previous" buttons that appear in multiple modal dialog boxes, they must appear in the same relative order (e.g. next on the lower right, previous on the lower left).  If we say that "Cancel" is a navigation mechanism, then this might require that Cancel and perhaps OK must likewise appear in the same relative locations.
>> 
>> GV2:  Careful not to change the words.   It says "order" not location.    And yes this is exactly what it means.    And if you swapped OK and Cancel in order on a  dialog box I would expect that there would be many people who would click the wrong one all the time. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> But I don't see how this says that the printer icon/button must always be named "Print" if it appears in multiple modal dialog boxes.  Or really anything about naming.  This seems to be only about layout.
>> 
>> GV2:  Correct. as I mentioned above I crossed wires.  
>> 
>> So lets just revisit with this focused on ORDER.  So I repaired my comments below  
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>   I find it to be a lot like Bypass Blocks.  It is either generally automatically satisfied
>>>> 
>>>> GV:  how would it be automatically satisfied.   There is nothing automatic that I can see about the order  buttons or controls are presented. 
>>>> 
>>>>> (and so of little added value),
>>>> 
>>>> GV:  based on what?   This can be very confusing cognitively to have a list of commands that keeps being reordered. 
>>>> 
>>>>> or it can be looked at based on Intent and Understanding, and applied more thoughtfully to software (e.g. for cognitive disabilities, some variant of "things that look the same should behave the same, things that behave differently should look different").
>>>> 
>>>> GV:  What do you mean "applied more thoughtfully".    Do you mean write a new SC?    
>>>> Isn't what you propose essentially what this SC says already? 
>>> 
>>> PK: I mean moving beyond "relative order layout" into exactly your first paragraph above in this e-mail: consistent naming and use of controls - beyond simply position.
>> 
>> GV2:  yes - well we can't re-write this SC and that topic is handled in another SC anyway (SC 3.2.4)
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>   I think the right thing to do is go back to WCAG and see if we have their blessing to either say this doesn't really apply, or to develop something more fitting and appropriate to software.
>>>> 
>>>> GV: Again - the WCAG has no authority to do either of these - so it cannot grant that authority to the task force.   I hate to see us continually not working on language we can use -- instead of trying to rewrite WCAG or get permission to write new SC or cut SC. 
>>>> 
>>>> There are examples in the previous items as to how to handle things that are a problem _--- by pointing out the problem.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see any problem with this one though. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> -- 
>>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
>>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
>>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
>>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 506 9522 
> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be sure to use: peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment