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

On 9/07/2014 13:48, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
> Heuristically speaking:
>
> Why wouldn’t a blind user know a new window was opened? 
>
>  
>
> In at least three screen readers I use I don’t seem to miss this
> information. 
>
>  
>
> Standardsly speaking:
>
> The window handle is available for assistive technology use from the
> OS or user-agent using the OS, so I’m not clear why this is a content
> issue and not a user-agent issue, especially since how such windows
> are handled is nearly universally configurable now in browsers.  Since
> the user-agent knows, the information is obviously available, so the
> assistive technology should be able to pick this up easily enough
> without specific additional content cues.
>
>
>  
>
> What am I missing?
>

If you argue only from the point of view of screen readers, you miss all
other users with disabilities; screen reader users represent a minority
of people with disabilities. That's why I checked what 7 different
browsers do with 'target="_blank"'; as a sighted keyboard user, for
example, you get exactly nothing. As a magnifier user, you get nothing.

Best regards,

Christophe

>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2014 7:05 AM
> *To:* Aurélien Levy; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SC failure for opening new window without prior notice ?
>
>  
>
> Aurelien,
>
>  
>
> When a blind user activates a link that opens a new window without
> prior warning they do not know that a new window has been opened and
> thus their “browser history” renewed. Thus when they press the key for
> their screen reader to go back to the previous page nothing happens.
> Eventually they learn that we need to “close the current window” if we
> want to go back. However if they have followed as series of
> “blank-targets” this becomes a very hit-or-miss approach.
>
>  
>
> So in practical terms target="_blank" without a warning is a barrier
> and thus a failure of WCAG level A
>
>  
>
> SC 3.2.2 seems to cover this adequately. for example when it talks
> about form submission buttons being clearly marked as such, after all
> a form submission button is just a link to another page or state just
> as a target=”_blank”. The intention is clear here and it really is not
> practicable to provide examples of every possible situation where a
> change of context might be introduced. The over-riding essential is
> that the page operates in a predictable manner.
>
>  
>
> Richard
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Aurélien Levy <mailto:aurelien.levy@temesis.com>
>
> *Sent:*Wednesday, July 09, 2014 11:10 AM
>
> *To:*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
> *Subject:*Re: SC failure for opening new window without prior notice ?
>
>  
>
>
>
> 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>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/F22>.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christophe
>
> I agree with that but it strange because the understanding of 3.2.5
> state :
>
> *Change on Request:* Changes of context
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html#context-changedef>
> are initiated only by user request or a mechanism
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html#mechanismdef>
> is available to turn off such changes. (Level AAA)
>
> and we have this /Note: /Clicking on a link is an example of an action
> that is "initiated only by user request."
>
> So nothing ask about prior warning. It may be better to have something
> like :
> *Change on Request:* Changes of context
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html#context-changedef>
> are initiated only by user request *with a prior warning* or a
> mechanism
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html#mechanismdef>
> is available to turn off such changes. (Level AAA)
> or
> *Change on Request:* Changes of context
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html#context-changedef>
> are initiated only by user request or a mechanism
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html#mechanismdef>
> is available to turn off*, warn the the user *of such changes. (Level
> AAA)
>
> Regarding SC 2.4.4 I ask the question because there is an example of
> using title to warn the user of opening new windows
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/H33 so if not
> warning the user is not a failure of SC 2.4.4 maybe it's best to
> change this example as well
>
> Aurélien
>
>
>  
>
> Richard Warren
> Technical Manager
> Website Auditing Limited (Userite)
> http://www.userite.com
>
>
>  
>


-- 
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).