RE: Re[2]: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?

  *   move 'Animation from Interactions' out of Operable>Enough Time. See comments on possible options.
I disagree with this.  The problem with animation is not to do with having enough time but about causing physical health issues for people.  A better place might be under 2.3 Seizures but that topic would need to be expanded to address aspects beyond seizures.  Perhaps that is not possible in WCAG 2.1 to update the title of 2.3?


Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access, inc. (formerly SSB BART Group, inc.)
(703) 637-8957<>
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: Michael Gower []
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:18 PM
To: Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <>; WCAG <>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?

The addition of "other" in front of properties for Status Changes is a friendly editorial change from my perspective, but don't want to get distracted by the important question of whether we have all the new SCs in the right guidelines!

The other items Steve and I agreed on:

  *   move 'Animation from Interactions' out of Operable>Enough Time. See comments on possible options.
  *   move 'Character Key Shortcuts' to Operable>Keyboard Accessible
     *   move 'Concurrent Input Mechanisms'  out of Operable>Pointer Accessible.
Steve also did not disagree with me about:

  *   move 'Reflow' and 'Text Spacing' from Perceivable>Distinguishable to Perceivable>Adaptable
A key part of my analysis was that a new Guideline called something like Operable > Additional Modalities could contain a number of orphans. Given the unresolved discussion on the Sensors guidelines language, this is one possible path to take for it as well.


Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3<>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034

From:        "Joshue O Connor - InterAccess" <<>>
To:        "Michael Gower" <<>>, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <<>>
Cc:        WCAG <<>>
Date:        2018-01-12 12:00 PM
Subject:        Re[2]: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?

Like it, one suggestion..While largely editorial - I think it is clearer.

"In content implemented using markup languages, status messages can be programmatically determined through role or other properties so the messages can be presented to the user by assistive technologies without receiving focus."



------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Gower" <<>>
To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <<>>
Cc: "WCAG" <<>>
Sent: 12/01/2018 19:02:50
Subject: Re: Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?

I had a whole list of such suggestions back in early December, which Steve responded to. Pasting here for reference...

RE: SC classificationsMichael Gower to: Repsher, Stephen J 2017-12-08 07:55 AM
From: "Michael Gower" <<>>
To: "Repsher, Stephen J" <<>>
Cc: WCAG <<>>
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Thanks, Steve. I think your comments can stand on their own, but I wanted to respond to this one:

>If this is moved, then so should 1.4.4.

We cannot touch any existing 2.0 SCs in this exercise. I believe that was demonstrated when David proposed to move a couple of 2.0 AAA SCs to create a more consistent numbering and classification in 2.1. That said, we shouldn't perpetuate potentially poor historical classifications with new decisions in this round. If we think a new SC fits better somewhere, it should go there.

I think it is likely there will end up being a 2.2, and to the degree that we can keep future modalities and developments in mind, I think we should try to make our classification as aligned with the POUR principles as possible in this round, regardless of curiosities in 2.0.

From:        "Repsher, Stephen J" <<>>
To:        Michael Gower <<>>, WCAG <<>>
Date:        2017-12-07 10:19 AM
Subject:        RE: SC classifications


Thanks, Mike.  Good analysis.  I put comments where I agree or disagree below.


From:Michael Gower []
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 11:00 AM
To: WCAG <<>>
Subject: SC classifications

Assuming the Dec 7 version of this<>is the correct and most up to date list, I'd like to get some clarity on why things have been classified as they are, and if/when we can address possible changes. To the degree that we can normalize the criteria within the POUR model, we should. (And I get that the model itself does not result in clear delineation.)

Identify Common Purpose - under Perceivable>Adaptable. I get the SC can be theoretically used to do adaptation, but it doesn't really fit with what is covered by the webaim Transformability <> topic. Surely its primary purpose is Understandable<>. Again, realizing this is webaim material not w3c, the topics on meaning seem perfectly aligned. Not a great fit in a subcategory... Readable, isn't horrible. Input Assistance is bang on for the input purposes.

[Steve] I disagree and think Adaptable is a good fit.  The techniques here such as microdata or other attributes are not part of the default presentation.  Rather, they exist so a user can transform the content to familiarities that work for them.  WebAIM’s article is focused on physical disabilities, but the addition of this SC is an appropriate application for the cognitive space.

Contextual Information - also under Perceivable>Adaptable. Same argument as Identify Common Purpose. Should be Understandable

Reflow - under Perceivable>Distinguishable. Seems to make more sense under Perceivable>Adaptable. The very title of the SC is something of an argument for this. I understand this is more of a subtle difference, but taking in all the criteria in these two subcategories, it seems to make more sense.

[Steve] If this is moved, then so should 1.4.4.  Same grayness applies as with Text Spacing.

Text spacing - also under Perceivable>Distinguishable. Same argument as Reflow. The SC is about adapting the text. Seems to meet the short description of Adaptable: "presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure."

[Steve] I could go either way on this (and it was discussed on the issue that resulted in renaming this SC from Adapting Text).  Guidelines 1.3 and 1.4 do not exist as black and white.

Content on Hover of Focus - also under Perceivable>Distinguishable. I get that the goal of this is to ensure everyone can take advantage of the content, but a dispassionate examination of the actual language of the SC suggests that it is dictating Operation. As a double-barrelled SC, it belongs under both Keyboard Accessible and Pointer Accessible. A pragmatic compromise may be to dump it under Navigable with some cross references or something.

[Steve] I disagree.  This is Primarily about making it easier (or possible) to see the additional content and whatever it may cover up because of lack of lack of consideration for magnified views, large pointers, etc.  That said, when the triggers or additional content have operable components, there is some principle overlap.

Accessible Authentication - under Operable>Enough time.  Definitely agree it belongs under Operable, but since there is no time factor in the SC, it is a loose fit. There isn't really anywhere better. It could be possibly addressed by altering 2.6 from Additional Sensor Inputs to something more generic like Additional Modalities.

[Steve] Agree it doesn’t fit.

Animation from Interactions - under Operable>Enough time. Originally this had some timing factors in it, so was an 'okay' fit. But I think it much more appropriately belongs under Operable>Seizures. I'd also advocate the "Seizures" category be reworded and broadened, but I guess that would be a 2.0 normative change and so is sacrosanct.

[Steve] Agree.

Character Key Shortcuts - under Operable>Navigable. I think this fits better under Operable>Keyboard Accessible. Yes, it is there because of voice control, but ultimately it's about an unambiguous keyboard affordance. If people buy into my Operable>Additional Modalities suggestion, it could also fit quite comfortably in there.

[Steve] Agree navigable is not a great fit as the shortcut doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with navigation or finding content.

Label in Name - under Operable>Navigable. Makes more sense under the proposed Operable>Additional Modalities suggestion. Can actually clarify intent, just by being located there, as otherwise very unclear from from SC language alone what the intent is.

[Steve] I disagree.  For a speech user, this is all about jumping to the control efficiently.  (For a low vision user, it has Understandable benefits, but that’s secondary).

Most Pointer SCs (Gestures, Cancellation, Target Size) - fine as is except...

Concurrent Input Mechanims - under Operable>Pointer Accessible. Since this covers a whole lot more than pointer, it makes a lot more sense under Operable>Additional Modalities.

[Steve] Agree.

Status Changes - under Operable>Predictable. I think this actually makes more sense under Perceivable. Subcategory? Probably Distinguishable, or maybe Adaptable.

[Steve] Strongly agree.  This belongs under Adaptable as it is about the messages being transformed into audio or Braille at the appropriate time.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3<>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034

From:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>>
To:        WCAG <<>>
Date:        2018-01-12 10:30 AM
Subject:        Move 3.2.6 Status changes to the Adaptable guideline?


Steve has a proposed change to move 3.2.6 (Could look like this:<>)

What do people think?

(my take is that it might also make sense at 4.1.3, but am not passionate about that).



Andrew Kirkpatrick

Group Product Manager, Accessibility


Received on Sunday, 14 January 2018 01:18:29 UTC