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

Ø  When you use magnification and a new screen pops up outside the
magnified area, and you don't notice it because it's outside that area,
isn't that an accessibility issue?



This sounds like a bug in the screen magnification software and should be
reported to the vendor of the product.



Jonathan



*From:* Christophe Strobbe [mailto:strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:59 AM
*To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
*Cc:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
*Subject:* Re: SC failure for opening new window without prior notice ?




On 9/07/2014 14:53, Steve Faulkner wrote:

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


If an issue disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, it is not
just a usability issue. When you use magnification and a new screen pops up
outside the magnified area, and you don't notice it because it's outside
that area, isn't that an accessibility issue?

Best regards,

Christophe



--

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).






-- 

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).