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

as a *user* you get nothing,
points to it being usability issue

--

Regards

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


On 9 July 2014 13:44, Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>
>
> 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
> <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 <aurelien.levy@temesis.com>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2014 11:10 AM
>
> *To:* 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).
>
>