Re: Discussion of Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'

@ Steve
> 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.

I never intended programmatic notification to be announced without a screen
reader... that's why the definition has accessibility supported
requirements. Purhaps it needs better clarification.

@ Jason
> Notification set by the content, via methods that are supported by user
agents, including assistive technologies. The notification can be presented
to the user irrespective of which user interface component, if any, has
virtual or actual focus.”

Sure I can go for that.

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, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:21 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> Suppose we changed the proposal:
>
>
>
> “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.”
>
>
>
> As follows:
>
>
>
> “Notification set by the content, via methods that are supported by user
> agents, including assistive technologies. The notification can be presented
> to the user irrespective of which user interface component, if any, has
> virtual or actual focus.”
>
>
>
> We could alternatively use the term “point of regard” in the second
> sentence, but we don’t define or employ that term in WCAG currently, and it
> seems unnecessary to add it just for the purpose of this definition.
>
>
>
> So, if we rewrote it along the above lines, would this avoid the
> interpretation whereby use of the Web Speech API could satisfy the
> definition?
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:04 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'
>
>
>
> > Aria-live may solve that – but that’s not what the definition allows
> for.  The definition would allow for a speech API announcement only to pass.
>
>
>
> I don't understand. The entire purpose of the definition is to allow
> aria-live to meet it.
>
> ​That's the intent of it.​
>
>
> " ...using methods that are supported by user agents, including assistive
> technologies..."
>
> This is borrowed from programmatically determined
>
> ​, which is primarily about screen readers.​
>
>
>
> ​If we want to completely unpack this SC and try to rewrite for all types
> of other notifications, then I'd be interested to see that.​ But his SC as
> written has broad support everywhere I go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=mNmzMATokpTqyhSIf5sb6z8MuErVBSTlDKRyEv1Neig%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=mlE8opjywMU05FmR9RWXGmoik5k1Ct3BM%2BqMzBvqyS4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=cs9jKcMPuzsIFMBi8INYL6YdbYuQskDXl%2F2f0tdCcps%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=QXdzzKiPDLwi5Np9LpVKaSc3LAX6MZjMynUlIBkLEMg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=AQ8LpYzZfwgRfJtRT2zccfOSqieYzURwLeHQlVMC5aQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:45 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23purpose-of-controls&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=zQAQ2Llxp01X0KsPsYdLiw4fWVc72j6ffGqFQHn20AQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> It should be
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#change-of-content
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23change-of-content&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=o8kqIpOm9%2BIXwBGDm3vprCLpSvoSSZVDESgP4aWFNBI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think we have to throw this CFC thread out and reissue it. It has caused
> terrible confusion.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=mNmzMATokpTqyhSIf5sb6z8MuErVBSTlDKRyEv1Neig%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=mlE8opjywMU05FmR9RWXGmoik5k1Ct3BM%2BqMzBvqyS4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=cs9jKcMPuzsIFMBi8INYL6YdbYuQskDXl%2F2f0tdCcps%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=QXdzzKiPDLwi5Np9LpVKaSc3LAX6MZjMynUlIBkLEMg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=AQ8LpYzZfwgRfJtRT2zccfOSqieYzURwLeHQlVMC5aQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:25 PM, David MacDonald <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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=mNmzMATokpTqyhSIf5sb6z8MuErVBSTlDKRyEv1Neig%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=mlE8opjywMU05FmR9RWXGmoik5k1Ct3BM%2BqMzBvqyS4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=cs9jKcMPuzsIFMBi8INYL6YdbYuQskDXl%2F2f0tdCcps%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=QXdzzKiPDLwi5Np9LpVKaSc3LAX6MZjMynUlIBkLEMg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=AQ8LpYzZfwgRfJtRT2zccfOSqieYzURwLeHQlVMC5aQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <
> 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]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2017 1:25 PM
> *To:* WCAG <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 <josh@interaccess.ie>]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2017 1:06 PM
> *To:* WCAG <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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23purpose-of-controls&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=zQAQ2Llxp01X0KsPsYdLiw4fWVc72j6ffGqFQHn20AQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fcommit%2Fb5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b136a7445c4&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=%2BBYbIWuwlRbhMJrD0AB7dMKQ1fFn9S3pB0SWRh6mAOc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> This was discussed on todays call: https://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-
> ag-minutes.html#item09
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F10%2F03-ag-minutes.html%23item09&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C53e171aa33a64bcb022908d50a9a16fa%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636426579285001140&sdata=7ka0Mh1o9Kbc4apYmx3Rhomj59ohAVg9KQ0l4IblVec%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 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 *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>