Re: CFC: Change of Content SC

>  ?? Do we have techniques for doing this?

Yes, in all major technologies.

>> For example in a game or simulation - there will continual changes of
content.   There is no exception for this  — so is there a technique that
should be used in these situations  to indicate that there are continuously
changing content?

We can place a note on the Draft: "The working group is seeking input to
account for situations where there is frequent, or constant updating."

>> Or is this ONLY supposed to apply to content that changes in response to
a user action.

It applies to all changes to the content currently. It could be narrowed
for user initiated changes but the general feeling is that it should
include all changes to content that are part of the primary purpose of the
page.

>> If you DON’T mean changes due to user action — then for dynamic content
(constantly changing) content is a simple notice someplace that says that
the page has continually changing content sufficient?  or would the page
need to stream a constant flow of notifications through some mechanism that
is supported by AT?

We could provide something like that. However, I would like to hear what
the public has to say. There was an exception for over 5 notifications a
minute, but it was dropped. Your language might be better. We want to
ensure however there is not an exemption for things like chat widgets,
where a ping that a comment was posted is key to having a fluent
conversation. This is the usual behavipur anyway of chat programs.


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 Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> wrote:

> +1
>
>