Re: Further discussion on Change of Content SC

Hi Andrew,
Yes I am aware that all content changes do not cause  context change.
That is not the point.
 But the basic 'change in content' included in that definition namely,
'if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able
to view the entire page simultaneously'
is what is being discussed in 3.2.7 and such content addition to the
page is not novel or something that did not exist before. So it is
contemplated by WCAG 2.0 and is expected to be evaluated using WCAG
2.0.
About auto weather updates: it is not what is being discussed.  It is
not based on user action.

Basically, when one activates a link or button (user action) one
expects something to happen.
If it is not a new page (like effect of activating a link) but content
added on the same page then that content should be perceivable.
If a popup opens up like a modal, and goes undetected by the SR
because of deficient markup (i.e. no role )it is a failure, right?
Likewise if some text is displayed somewhere above the form or
products one can add to cart, that content should be perceivable. Its
role and info-relationship needs to be available to AT users too. I do
not see why one needs to distinguish this from the popup or modal
case.

Applying 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 2.4.3 and 4.1.2  as needed are sufficient to
expose new content added to a page based on user input.

About Objection#2: The JS code is attached to the submit button  and
the button  is the trigger. The code examines all form controls and
places error messages for failed fields. The code is not attached to
the individual form controls in this case and they are not triggers.

Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh


On 6/7/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>Objection #1:I pointed to the definition of 'change of context'
>>because it covers content changes  being discussed in the proposed SC
>>3.2.7. So this has not been overlooked by normative WCAG 2.0.
>
> Yes, but the “changes of context” definition includes an indication that
> changes of content are not always changes of context.
>
>>One can and needs to apply the same SCs to  content added to the page
>>as a result of user action just as one applies them to the content on
>>page load.
>>That new content  must have markup to satisfy 1.3.1 and be in the
>>reading / navigation order.
>
> Sure, agreed.
>
>>The semantics, info-relationship of the new content should be marked
>>up by assigning a suitable role / aria-live property ... more
>>important if the content precedes the reading / nav order.
>>ARIA19  refers to 'There are also a number of special case live region
>>roles which can be used instead of applying live region properties
>>directly'.
>>A global form level error message  is related to the entire form and
>>the relation can be exposed if it is assigned a role / aria-live
>>property.
>
> So on an HTML web page does everything that is added after page load need to
> use aria-live in order to meet 4.1.2?
>
> If I have a weather page and there is a content section that is updated
> every 10 minutes with the new weather, what SC requires that it use
> aria-live to notify the end user?
>
>>Same is true of  error messages displayed  instantly as one navigates
>>to the next form field or a message that says  an item has been added
>>to cart, etc.
>>
>>Objection #2:
>>Which control is the first exception referring to:
>>"a programmatically determined relationship between the new content
>>and the control that triggers it”.
>>I understand the trigger to be the  submit button for the form is it not?
>>The form control does not trigger the  new content but is the cause of it.
>>This SC requires an association with the submit button as per my reading.
>
> I wouldn’t think that in your case that the submit button “triggers” it - it
> is the validation issue on a control that triggers the message. This could
> be clarified, I agree.
>
>>My suggestion:
>>That's why I believe  the content changes contemplated by 3.2.7
>>(barring continual changes type) do not require a new SC.
>>Content needs to be added to Understanding doc and techniques doc.
>>For instance, ARIA19 can be broadened to say how  roles (not natively
>>available) can be applied to convey  semantics and info relationships.
>
> I’m still seeing a gap. I agree that many form/UI component-based scenarios
> are covered by 4.1.2, there is a lot of content that isn’t covered by
> 4.1.2.
>
> AWK
>
>>
>>Thanks very much,
>>
>>Sailesh Panchang
>>
>>On 6/7/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Sailesh,
>>> I’m not sure what to record. David had indicated that this is broader
>>> than
>>> the requirements for 4.1.2, and in fact the first exception states "There
>>> is
>>> a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and
>>> the
>>> control that triggers it;” which pretty much means that if you have a
>>> form
>>> control with a validation message that comes up when the control is in
>>> an
>>> error state and that is programmatically associated with the control
>>> then
>>> that new content doesn’t need to meet 3.2.7.
>>>
>>> 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are about changes of context. That may or may not be
>>> related
>>> to new content on the page.
>>>
>>> I think that these issues have been discussed and as a result I didn’t
>>> think
>>> that there was an objection. If I misinterpreted and there is an
>>> objection,
>>> please clarify what the specific objection is.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> AWK
>>>
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>> Adobe
>>>
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C31c3c2ec9ece4a8cc00d08d4adcc7acc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324541121982082&sdata=yJHa7azH%2B4%2B04a7wVF71U%2FQ6wyqwcij4hce3hJBmPSk%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/7/17, 10:43, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kindly record this following comment  as part of the CFC as the
>>>>concerns raised by me on this thread have not been addressed.
>>>>Content on a Web page  changing in response to user action is not new.
>>>>This is a characteristic of dynamic pages and has been around for a
>>>>dozen years plus.
>>>>WCAG 2.0  covers dynamic content. This is   referenced in the normative
>>>> text:
>>>>1. Changes of context cover content changes "if made without user
>>>>awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire
>>>>page simultaneously". So 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 address some types of dynamic
>>>>content.
>>>>2. SC 4.1.2 covers another block : "notification of changes to these
>>>>items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies".
>>>>
>>>>There are a couple of  ARIA techniques that  reference WCAG 2 SC for
>>>>added content:
>>>>ARIA18: Using role="alertdialog" creates a notification.
>>>>ARIA19: Using ARIA role=alert or Live Regions to Identify Errors
>>>>
>>>>Also, David's last email above notes: "I can see the rational for
>>>>added content to components in 4.1.2".
>>>>
>>>>Therefore one really may need to apply one or more of the existing SCs
>>>> to evaluate the new content added to a page as a result of user
>>>>action. One can apply 4.1.2 / 3.3.1  as ARIA 18/19 suggest  as well as
>>>>ensure compliance with 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 2.4.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 as the
>>>>situation demands.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks and best wishes,
>>>>Sailesh Panchang
>>>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>>>Deque Systems Inc
>>>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 6/6/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> AGWG’ers,
>>>>>
>>>>> As we have received substantially positive feedback leading up to this
>>>>> CfC,
>>>>> this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, in response to comments we will also add a reviewer note
>>>>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>> SC to clarify that there are outstanding questions that the Working
>>>>> Group
>>>>> is
>>>>> interested in additional feedback on related to how to best handle
>>>>> content
>>>>> with continual changes of content such as games and simulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> This decision will be recorded at
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=NpU%2Ftgyleg9wb4ClVZ1tX7ABDoBosmC6QSjC98Gz%2Bb8%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> AWK
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>
>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=6PJFjS%2FhTN6E24pDZ0KDhN%2FQBvbv5lZDv9XtJheCI%2Fk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>> <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 13:12
>>>>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>>> Subject: CFC: Change of Content SC
>>>>> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 13:13
>>>>>
>>>>> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday June 1rd at 1:00pm Boston time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Working Group has reviewed and approved a new Success Criterion
>>>>> for
>>>>> inclusion in the Editor’s Draft: Change of Content, at level AA, with
>>>>> the
>>>>> goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Survey results:
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FSCreview_May_17%2Fresults%23xq10&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=xsPnBmJ2rktgbc2zuQSJZUWCeqwNyKO37fWxRmNWk9s%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FSCreview_May_17%2Fresults%23xq10&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=Okf0JE8v9L3KHEtTV1WoBkkynnQOt01S72abhaualTk%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>> Call minutes:
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F05%2F30-ag-minutes.html%23item04&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=Q6WZlzTLBDzVOua1WgqnBTCXorj4hB8mX8FwHe2meKo%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F05%2F30-ag-minutes.html%23item04&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=%2F3FA5IQMojJ3KxpURZeEw9kaQaai2PlZ7n7liDnuPiQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fchange-of-content_ISSUE-2%2Fguidelines%2F%23change-of-content&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=zjk6w2LH%2FG8ZuuQ1EAqBTeXdopPfHNs8tqr%2BK33vcNQ%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fchange-of-content_ISSUE-2%2Fguidelines%2F%23change-of-content&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=yJZ%2FnwEScLAYTlwQ2eZ4cxPEWU6dl6rRGhwGyCo2rcs%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have
>>>>> not
>>>>> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
>>>>> being
>>>>> able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the
>>>>> CfC
>>>>> deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> AWK
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>
>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=6PJFjS%2FhTN6E24pDZ0KDhN%2FQBvbv5lZDv9XtJheCI%2Fk%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=WXIOlDgSmjs8RA701PHIwW2a41iGdgiljy4cZ6ePY9w%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> AWK
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>
>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C196027b77c97471100f108d4adb38f43%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636324434099973280&sdata=6PJFjS%2FhTN6E24pDZ0KDhN%2FQBvbv5lZDv9XtJheCI%2Fk%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a7d4a78043f48f5dab308d4a77f44dc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636317612434615141&sdata=WXIOlDgSmjs8RA701PHIwW2a41iGdgiljy4cZ6ePY9w%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Sailesh Panchang
>>>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>>>Deque Systems Inc
>>>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Sailesh Panchang
>>Principal Accessibility Consultant
>>Deque Systems Inc
>>Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
>>Mobile: 571-344-1765
>


-- 
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
Mobile: 571-344-1765

Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 19:41:10 UTC