Re: new version of 2.2.7 - interruptions - based on comments from Andrew and Jake.

A definition for Interruptions is critical. I did comment that it shouldn’t be “unnecessary interruptions” because it can be handled with the exception to evaluate whether it is essential or not, but we still need to be clear about what constitutes an interruption. My comment #2 about change of content stands.

As it is right now, this will prohibit use of features that would be regarded as interruptions but might be very useful to people such a chat support area for a site that appears when a user is struggling to find something and a live agent can offer suggestions. Some people will desperately need that type of support, some people will find it distracting – is it practical to ask each site to have user preferences for users to visit and disable these, even if the user isn’t logged in? Is it practical to ask each user to seek out a settings area for every site they visit on the off chance that the site will have such interrupting elements?

Without a definition, I am certain that web site owners will take considerable latitude in their definition of what is essential to “usage or meaning of the content”. Certainly an assistance window with chat support would be regarded by an ecommerce store as essential to usage.

Also, in the note it uses “changes of context” but that isn’t part of the SC.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 07:45
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Abma <jake.abma@ing.nl>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Subject: new version of 2.2.7 - interruptions - based on comments from Andrew and Jake.

Hi Folks
I put two versions up at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2.2.7_Revision<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2F2.2.7_Revision&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C43f329c0f54e46badf4708d546de59c0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636492843166847144&sdata=eD8Qzg8FunC47yZAttA2NXl2ad4M12IHNBGJXc%2BprWM%3D&reserved=0> so we can compare them side by side.  The second version incorporates Jakes direction and Andrews comments however I think it also addresses the reasons for the new version (Jason and Mikes comments as well as the online issues) and Andrews comments

Are there still outstanding issues?

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fil.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Flisaseeman%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C43f329c0f54e46badf4708d546de59c0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636492843166847144&sdata=HShbNuX1tbeNy4bw%2BIYDQCae%2BT9oMkOAvl2tQtnd%2Bh8%3D&reserved=0>, Twitter<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSeemanLisa&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C43f329c0f54e46badf4708d546de59c0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636492843166847144&sdata=xpQ4YEsGbHX%2FoQlJH9vtGqT%2BxBNYK6JrXPPmUsp2kbs%3D&reserved=0>