Stepping up or down with the next step: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion)

Gregg,

As always very helpful.

Real world examples prove the user challenges of not telling users of new information or changing information from the selection of different radio buttons or checkboxes.

I still feel that the context of the section these items are in changes drastically depending on which radio button they select. 

Using your room analogy, while they may not be stepping into a different room, they need to know if they will be walking down a set of stairs in the room or stepping up a set of stairs in the room with their next step. The context is that immediate. 

It sounds like the current acceptable practice is to let them take that first step and find out if they are going up or down.

>From a form example of insurance questions, if they select the Medical insurance radio button as their need, the rest of the questions are a completely different context than if they selected the auto insurance radio button as their need.

I have a strong assertion that we can make webpages technically meet WCAG 2.0 and yet limit or worse hinder the accessibility of the information or interactions on these pages by our disabled users compared to our non-disabled users. 

Best,

Alan


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 8:58 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion)

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

...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 | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke