RE: CFC: Change of Content SC

+1 to the CfC as long as a note to reviewers is included alerting them to the issue regarding frequently updated content.

See below for further responses to David’s latest comments.

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:44 AM

You and I have discussed this fairly extensively off line. I think this is a fairly liberal interpretation of 1.3.1. The scenario is not a standard violation of 2.0 cited by most of us in this field. Some may say it is somewhat contrived although I can understand your rationale, and I wouldn't contradict it if a report like this came across my desk. However, I would raise my eyebrows because I wouldn't say these updates often "arrest attention visually".

[Jason] I think it’s clear that the changes to content currently under discussion are not accommodated by 1.3.1. If they were, then so would the changes addressed by  the last clause of 4.1.2, as these would likewise tend to be visually apparent. 1.3.1 is more about ensuring that the semantic distinctions and relationships conveyed through presentation are also conveyed programmatically, but it doesn’t address information that needs to be provided in order to notify the user of changes in the content.

4.1.2 is limited to “user interface components”.

Thus I think there is a need to provide programmatic notification of changes to content that do not occur in “user interface components”, which justifies the latest proposal.


________________________________

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.

________________________________