W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2014

RE: Time Limit Methods for Native Mobile

From: Julie Romanowski <julie.romanowski.l87g@statefarm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:54:26 +0000
To: Madhavi Herle <Madhavi_Herle@infosys.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2F9CDEEFC09F2B4DA143BE00C8AA4EB1440AA7D3@WPSDGQH7.OPR.STATEFARM.ORG>
This information is very helpful. Thanks so much!

-----Original Message-----
From: Madhavi Herle [mailto:Madhavi_Herle@infosys.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:05 PM
To: John Foliot; Julie Romanowski; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Time Limit Methods for Native Mobile

Hi Julie,

This is from W3C website - "Techniques are informative-that means they are not required or should be used as reference only. The basis for determining conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the success criteria from the WCAG 2.0 standard-not the techniques. Thus while the techniques are useful for evaluating content, evaluations must go beyond just checking the sufficient technique tests in order to evaluate how content conforms to WCAG success criteria."

So the focus should be on the success criteria and not the technique used to achieve this.

I agree with John Foliot, if the technique used allows the following, I think you are good to go 1. The focus is set on the system alert message 2. Screen reader announces this alert and is meaningful 3. Allows the user to adjust the time limit

Hope this helps

-Madhavi.


-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot [mailto:john@foliot.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 4:44 AM
To: 'Julie Romanowski'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Time Limit Methods for Native Mobile

Julie Romanowski wrote:
>
> The developer is relying on the system alert (banner) to notify the 
> user, and believes that this meets the requirement. A couple of my 
> accessibility resources argue that this method does not meet 2.2.1 
> requirements, and feel that the developer should use an alert dialog 
> within the application.

Hi Julie, one man's opinion follows:

First, I am not as up on Android Native development as I wish I were, so I will start by asking a question: does the "system alert (banner)" capture focus when initiated? i.e. does it behave like a region with aria-live activated? If the answer is yes (and I will presume that is so), then I think you are good to go.

>
> While the method the developer is using does not follow any of the 
> listed techniques for 2.2.1, the method does appear to allow the user 
> to adjust the time limit by accessing the notification bar in Android.
> Seeing as WCAG requirements can be met using techniques other than 
> those listed in W3C's Techniques for WCAG 2.0 document, would relying 
> on the Android banner be an acceptable way to conform?

Yup! The whole point of WCAG2 was to try and avoid being prescriptive, in favor of descriptive: explain what the outcome needs to be (and why), and then let the developers develop techniques to meet those clearly defined required outcomes.

For example, Guideline 1.1 Text Alternatives states "Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language." - OK, so that's the requirement, but *HOW* can you do that? Obviously using @alt is one way, but so is using @aria-label, @aria-labelledby, @longdesc, @aria-describedby... so you see, as long as you use an "accessibility supported" method (i.e. it's going to work for your targeted audience), then I believe the spirit and intent of WCAG 2 was to allow for other workable techniques to emerge.

In fact, if you/your developers come up with another way of "skinning the cat", and you've tested it and are sure it isn't leaving some behind, then I would encourage you to submit all of that to the WCAG Working Group
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/) who meet weekly to review just this type of thing. 
The new technique may be added to the Techniques documentation.

>
> I want to be sure that I'm addressing an actual Level A violation, not 
> just a best practice issue, and would appreciate any input this group 
> could provide.

Well, again, this is just my opinion, and IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), but for me at least, accessibility is about successful outcomes, and if this new techniques satisfies the requirement, I would give it a pass.

FWIW, YMMV

JF
------------------------------
John Foliot
Web Accessibility Specialist
W3C Invited Expert - Accessibility
Co-Founder, Open Web Camp








**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 11:54:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:53 UTC