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

>Every time you click a link you change content
I'm not sure what this refers to... if it means the changed state from
unvisited to visited then that's already covered in 4.1.1 and is
accessibility supported, screen readers announce that state. If it refers
to taking the user somewhere, then that is a change of *location* not a
change of content.

>Every time you click on a pull down menu
Again this is a change of state, from expanded=false to true, and that is
announced to the user if it is coded properly, and 4.1.2 requires it be
coded properly to announce that state, and this is sufficient notification
"navigation region expanded"

>When you push down a button and it changes color before you lift it up the
mouse?
Again this is a change of state, and it already is required in 4.1.2

There are questions to resolve with this SC but I *don't* think *these* are
of concern.

 Updating content is a significant problem on the modern web. One issue to
solve is to decide on the requirements for changes that happen downstream
from the control that changes them.  We may want to scope out  changes to
"flow content"  when follows the button.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

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

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 7:24 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> There are a million things that change content.
>
> Little bitty changes.
> Every time you click a link you change content
> Every time you click on a pull down menu
> When you push down a button and it changes color before you lift it up the
> mouse?
>
> I think there may be a world of unintended consequence to introducing
> something that requires warning with every change of content.
>
> Two questions.
>
>    1. what are the problems that real people are experiencing with real
>    content that blocks them from using it
>    2. have you thoroughly catalogued all the places where content changes
>    for any reason - any amount
>
>
> I think you will need to research and thoroughly document both before you
> can
> a) determine if the benefit outweighs the problems.
> 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.
>
>
> *gregg*
>
> On May 11, 2016, at 5:39 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> 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>
> 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 | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>
>>
>>
>
>