Re: SC failure for opening new window without prior notice ?

On 9/07/2014 11:31, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> On 9 July 2014 10:16, Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de
> <mailto:strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
>
>     Where in Aurélien's example is the "prior notice"? Which
>     mainstream browsers announce something like "new window" when a
>     link has 'target="_blank"'? (As far as I can see, not Firefox 30,
>     nor Google Chrome 35, Opera 12.17 (with the Presto engine), Opera
>     22 (with the Webkit engine), SeaMonkey 2.26.1, Comodo Dragon 33.1
>     or - eh - Internet Explorer 11. Only tested on Windows 7.)
>     Example 1 in technique G201 at least announces the new window:
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G201#G201-examples>
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G201#G201-examples>.
>
>
> from my reading of the criteria and the technique you cite, it is not
> a requirement that users be informed of new links opening a new
> window, its an 'advisory technique' not a 'sufficient technique'

OK, G201 is an advisory technique.

> if you look at the listed failures unlike F37: Failure of Success
> Criterion 3.2.2 due to launching a new window without prior warning
> when the status of a radio button, check box or select list is changed
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/F37> openeing a
> new window when activating a link is not listed as a failure.

Based on F37 alone, we cannot definitively conclude whether
target="_blank" without a warning is a failure. It is just not part of
*this* failure. In the absence of failure descriptions that specifically
mention Aurélien's case, we have only the success criteria to go by.
Whether this case fails SC 3.2.2 hinges on the interpretation of
"changing the setting of any user interface component": does activating
a link constitute a change in a setting? A link is a UI component, but
does activating it constitute a change in its setting? (Nothing that you
can retrieve from the DOM, as far as I know, unlike certain properties
of form fields.) So it seems hard to argue that Aurélien's example fails
SC 3.2.2.

However, the code fails SC3.2.5; there is even a failure for this:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/F22>.

Best regards,

Christophe


>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749

"La vie est courte, hélas! et je n'ai pas encore lu tous mes livres!" (d'après Mallarmé).