W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2017

Discussion of Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'

From: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 20:15:48 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
CC: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <68a50d6fcb0f4f0abaa43786bb5cda29@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Hi David,

I was not confused by the link to the wrong SC – my objection would be the same and I think Jonathan’s point still makes perfect sense.  Responding to your points…

>This SC is all about helping those screen reader users. It has been that from the beginning. It's a narrow and important  requirement

Ø  ​ and it was approved on that basis​

Ø
I agree with you on the importance, but allowing any “announcement”, such as through a speech API, neglects the deaf-blind users of those screen readers who need it converted to Braille.  Furthermore, unless the screen reader is managing the announcement, then you run the risk of the user not perceiving the sound as it could compete with other sound.

Ø
>That's in the first bullet: “There is a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and the control that triggers it;”
​
I’m saying that this should really be part of the criterion, not the exception for not meeting it.  I think Gregg’s main point in the GitHub issue is that the criterion as a whole is a bit confusing, and I agree.  I think the definition makes me more confused than I already was.

Steve

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 3:46 PM
To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'

The link in the CFC is going the the wrong SC. It is for Change of Content not Purpose of controls.

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#purpose-of-controls


It should be
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#change-of-content



I think we have to throw this CFC thread out and reissue it. It has caused terrible confusion.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

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

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:25 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
I seems that running this CFC definition when it is disassociated from the SC to which it applies has caused confusion.


>  @jonathanThe definition seems to allow for using the speech API in a browser to speak something.  This type of “announcement” may work for some users but doesn’t seem like a solution that works for different types of users with disabilities.  A programmatic notification should be something that could be converted into different formats – speech, braille, pop-up, vibration, etc.  If I am misunderstanding then I’d be happy to change my vote.

This SC is all about helping those screen reader users. It has been that from the beginning. It's a narrow and important  requirement
​ and it was approved on that basis​
.
​The main way of meeting it is using aria-live. I'm kind of surprised we're talking about widening the SC like this at this late date.

Widening
​ it ​to other types of notifications would be a real change to it and how would that be worded?

> @Steve
What is needed is a programmatic association given to the new content.

t
​hat's in the first bullet.

  *   There is a programmatically determined relationship between the new content and the control that triggers it;
​


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:(613)%20235-4902>

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

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>> wrote:
-1
I agree with Jonathon, and would add that his point is enforced by saying “announced”, which is biased towards certain users.  It also uses “notification” in the definition which is a practice we should avoid.

Ultimately, I think the real solution here is to reword the SC to not use such a term.  “Programmatic notification” implies (and the definition doesn’t help) that content beyond the “change of content” is needed, but that is not the case.  What is needed is a programmatic association given to the new content.

I also find the shopping cart example confusing because it seems like that is exempt by being the result of a user action.

I’m sorry I missed reviewing this in detail on the survey.  This all needs further discussion in my opinion.

Steve

From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 1:25 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'

-1.  The definition seems to allow for using the speech API in a browser to speak something.  This type of “announcement” may work for some users but doesn’t seem like a solution that works for different types of users with disabilities.  A programmatic notification should be something that could be converted into different formats – speech, braille, pop-up, vibration, etc.  If I am misunderstanding then I’d be happy to change my vote.

Jonathan

From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:06 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC - Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'

Call For Consensus — ends Friday October 6th at 1:00pm Boston time.

The Working Group has a new proposed definition of "Programmatic Notification" as found in the Change of Content SC.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#purpose-of-controls


The DFN text is:

<dfn>
Programmatic notification.

Notification set by the content which can be announced to the user without virtual or actual focus, using methods that are supported by user agents, including assistive technologies.

Example: a screen reader announces to a user that their shopping cart has been updated after they select an item for purchase.
</dfn>

And can be viewed here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/b5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b136a7445c4


This was discussed on todays call: https://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html#item09


This definition was previously missing from WCAG 2.1 and the proposal is to add it.

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
--
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie


Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2017 20:16:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:17 UTC