- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:24:56 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Greetings,
I sincerely hope my objection to this proposed SC will be considered. The reasoning is detailed at
http://www.mindoversight.com/demo/sc3-2-7.htm
Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh Panchang
Phone 571-344-1765
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/3/17, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Subject: Re: Discussion of Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'
To: "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 4:55 PM
@ Jonathan
>“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 CanAdapt Solutions
Inc.Tel: 613.235.4902LinkedIn
twitter.com/davidmacdGitHubwww.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
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:45
PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
wrote:
“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.”
That would be
better!
Jonathan
Jonathan
Avila
Chief Accessibility
Officer
Level Access,
inc. (formerly SSB BART Group,
inc.)
(703)
637-8957
Jon.avila@levelaccess.com
Visit us online:
Website |
Twitter |
Facebook |
LinkedIn |
Blog
Looking to boost your
accessibility knowledge? Check out
our free
webinars!
The information contained in this transmission may
be attorney privileged and/or confidential information
intended for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
From: White, Jason
J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:21 PM
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>;
Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>;
WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Discussion of Proposed definition
for 'Programatic Notification'
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
CanAdapt Solutions
Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn
twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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
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
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
twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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
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
CanAdapt Solutions
Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn
twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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
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]
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
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/
b5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b 136a7445c4
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
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.
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 13:26:08 UTC