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

Should I amend the pull request based on the amendment recommendations from
Jason, John and Steve?

I think there is general momentum, but just some iteration to get the
wording right.

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 Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> 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>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/#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
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
> --
> Joshue O Connor
> Director | InterAccess.ie
>