Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage

Hi John

I agree there is no magic number, and maybe there is a better simple way to
address it without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (baby and
bathwater are now very familiar to me). That's how the best SCs get made...
someone puts up a recommendation and it gets refined...

There was no magic number in WCAG 2.1.1 for Timing adjustable, for the
amount of time a website would have to leave a connection open to receive
an exemption, but we drew a line at 20 hours because we figured *every*
user needs a least 4 hours sleep a night. It gave authors an important
exception, and in 8 years we have never received a complaint.

The sentence I propose is an exception clause, so it is not telling authors
what to do, they don't have to follow it, but  if there was a lot of
updates on the page like popcorn then they could claim it. I'd love other
suggestions.

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 Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:36 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> > ... unless the primary purpose of the web page is to provide​ real time
> updates where there are more than [x] update(s) a minute.
>
> > My thinking is that we could ask the blind community how many updates is
> too much...
>
> Hi David,
>
> I understand the thinking here, but I fear that any specific number we try
> to determine will be too long/many for some, and not enough for others. I
> am reminded of a comment made by Jamie (Knight) and Lion at CSUN 2014:
> "At the end of this presentation you will know about exactly one autistic
> person..."
>
> In a perfect world, screen readers and websites would allow the individual
> user the option to adjust the frequency of updates (which echos
> the recurring theme of personalization we're seeing and hearing from COGA),
> but I think attempting to specify a specific value here will be overly
> prescriptive for a Success Criteria, and likely get some push-back. There
> is also the 'issue' of polite vs. assertive updates in aria-live - would
> that come into play here as well?
>
> JF
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 2:11 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>>
>> I've moved the section of whether or not initiated by the user to the
>> definition of Change of Content, to tighten up the wording of the SC a
>> bit...
>>
>> *[Jason] Excellent. It’s progressing in the right direction.*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
>> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>
>> Thank you for your compliance.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>