Re: CFC - NEW Proposed definition for 'Programatic Notification'

AGWG’ers,

As we have received some negative feedback leading up to this CfC and 
responses indicating that group members could live with a modified 
version of this definition -  this CfC is not agreed on as a consensus 
opinion of the working group.

This decision will be recorded at 
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions 
<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

Josh



John Foliot wrote:
> -1
>
> I have serious concerns about this, as the current draft definition 
> appears to address non-sighted users, but the draft definition appears 
> to also exclude low-vision users using extreme magnification (as well 
> as others), when it states:
>
>     Notification set by the content which _can be announced_ to the
>     user _without virtual or actual focus_
>
>
>  1. This appears to presume the presence (and requirement) of a screen
>     reader or other text-to-speech function ("announced", and
>     "Example: a screen reader announces to a user...") [i.e. issue
>     with the term "announced"]
>
>  2. The lack of visual or actual focus potentially excludes low-vision
>     users who may not be using TTS; it also may have an impact on some
>     users with cognition issues who may not realize that an action
>     performed in one region of the page updates content elsewhere (a
>     requirement of SC 1.3.1: "/...//to ensure that information and
>     relationships that are implied by visual or auditory formatting
>     are preserved when the presentation format changes./")
>
>  3. This definition also appears to potentially condone not meeting
>     the requirements of Success Criterion 2.4.7 Focus Visible
>     ("Notification set by the content...without virtual or actual
>     focus"). Granted, we see shopping-cart updates and similar widgets
>     that routinely have this issue, however I am concerned about a
>     Definition that appears to accept that as "OK".
>
>  4. It is unclear what the distinction is between "Programmatic
>     Notification" and "Programmatically Determinable", which states:
>
>               ("./..determined by software from author-supplied data
>     provided in a way that different user agents
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-user-agent>, including
>     assistive technologies
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-assistive-technology>//, can
>     extract and present this information to users in different
>     modalities./")
>
>     ...except for the fact that the original definition address
>     alternative modalities, which the proposed definition does not
>     address.
>
>
> To be clear:
> _
> _
> *I support the proposed draft SC (3.2.7 Change of Content) advancing 
> to WCAG 2.1, this is not the issue. *
>
> However, conceptually linked to this "*Understandable*" SC is the 
> additional requirement that any Change of Content *also* needs to be 
> "*Perceivable*" to all users as well. The current definition of 
> *Programmatic notification *however actively confuses this requirement 
> when it suggests that 'notification' would only be auditory in nature, 
> and that the lack of visible indication is acceptable.
>
>
> JF
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie 
> <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>> wrote:
>
>     Call For Consensus — ends Friday October 6th at 1:00pmBoston 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/#change-of-content
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#change-of-content>
>
>     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://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/b5c68e17f82feb0cdbbafc273f245b136a7445c4>
>
>
>     This was discussed on todays call:
>     https://www.w3.org/2017/10/03-ag-minutes.html#item09
>     <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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie