W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion)

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:57:20 -0500
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E425562A-DDB2-4976-B8E4-D2FC1C78D10B@raisingthefloor.org>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
the working group for WCAG clearly defined ( and meant to define) change of context to be different than change of content. 

It allowed pretty extensive change of content before it considered it a change of context.

Think of a room.  You can change the furniture in the living room quite a bit and it is still a living room.  But if you change it into something else - it is a change of context. 

We were thinking more of “disorienting”.   If you change the content so much that it would be disorienting to the person — it was a change of context. 

Opening up additional choices below the point of action was discussed and was clearly not felt to qualify.      Adding information above the point of action was felt to be a problem.     Dynamic pages - which are really other pages generated on the fly by the page script, is clearly a change of context.


Good luck 



gregg

> On May 11, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 12/05/2016 01:40, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>> Help me here, I don’t see how 3.2.2 can be nullified. It is clearly
>> stated in my opinion.
>> 
>> So if I select a radio button and new fields appear, the content as well
>> as the context has changed and I should be informed it is going to do so
>> or else it is a failure of 3.2.2.
>> 
>> 
>>        *3.2.2* On Input
>> 
>> Level A
>> 
>> Changing the setting of any user interface component does not
>> automatically cause a change of context unless the user has been advised
>> of the behavior before using the component.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's "nullified", but down to interpretation - likely comes down to what's considered a "major change" per https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#context-changedef <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#context-changedef>
> 
> ...which incidentally is a possible problem of subjective interpretation similar to what Gregg mentioned elsewhere in this thread
> 
> > b) figure out if and how to word an SC that avoids the problems and is still testable   (e.g. you can’t say “significant change in content” — since an author would never know what an evaluator would consider significant.
> 
> P
> -- 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> 
> www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk/> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke <https://github.com/patrickhlauke>
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ <http://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | http://redux.deviantart.com <http://redux.deviantart.com/>
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 00:57:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:29 UTC