Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change

Hi David,

I think that’s a really good start. I wonder if it needs to be narrowed a bit to avoid overlapping with ‘changes of context’, and to prevent notification overload?

Thinking about it, the issues with “changes of context” are currently triggered by on-focus and on-input only. We should keep in mind there are triggers (focus, input, user change, and automatic) and changes (context, content).

This proposal is generalizing the triggers to include any user-action or automatic update, and expanding the issue itself (content or context changing).

That makes the proposal feel like a 3.2.0 (as in, prequel to the current 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) rather than a 3.4.x.

A couple of suggestions to narrow it:


-          A narrower applicability could take a 1.3.1 approach of something like: “Changes in content conveyed through an updated presentation trigger a programmatic notification”.
That would catch changes that are highlighted visually, but not changes which are assumed to be updated without a visual notification (e.g. a form updating the following questions).

I’m not sure that wording is good enough, but I’m trying to say: If you visually highlight or draw attention to the change, it’s important, so programmatically highlight it as well.


-          Remove the examples which are change of context, for me that is: orientation, responsive pages, switching grid to list view, pagination link (items 1 & 2, 9 & 11). Assuming we don’t update the context definition, they are covered by change of context, rather than just content.
Either we need to combine content & context and focus on the triggers (on-focus, on-input, automatic), or keep them separate and not overlapping.

I’d also add that low-vision users (could) benefit, e.g:

-          Users who use magnification can be notified about updates outside of their current view.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 11 May 2016 at 23:39
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion)
Resent-From: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, 11 May 2016 at 23:40

I've taken stab at tweaking the SC proposal to address Gregg's concern about "User awareness". I borrowed the language from Programatically Determined, and created a new glossary item called "Programmatic notification".


SC x.x.x Change of content: Programmatic notification is provided for changes in content that either conveys information or indicates an action was taken, whether these changes are made by auto updates or as a result of user action. (Level AA)



Definition of "Programmatic notification": Notification by software from data provided in a user-agent-supported manner such that the user agents can extract and present this notification to users in different modalities, without futher action by the user, beyond activating the control which caused the change.



I've updated the Understanding to add Sailesh's examples when this applies and his distinction between notification of content... and changes that can be conveyed by notification of change of states, properties and values required in 4.1.2.

The proposal is here:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_SC_on_information_added_or_removed_from_a_page#Proposed_3.4.1


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
On 11/05/2016 21:33, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
"User awareness" is  used in the same manner as is used in the
glossary explaining "change of context". Any other alternative
wording?
The SC will need a note to clarify that this does not apply to links
and such  listed in the exclusions listed  in that email.

Ditto for "regular" forms, whose submit action would reload the current page / load another page.

Would the exclusion be, in very broad strokes, along the lines of "unless the change in content as a result of user action is expected and follows standard behavior (e.g. activation of a link resulting in a new webpage being loaded)" or similar?


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk<http://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