Re: Query regarding 1.3.4

Hi Brooks,

>  Is anyone in this thread saying that abandoning the user task and
refreshing the page is a viable reason for passing SC 1.3.4 - Orientation
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/orientation.html>  in the
half-finished business license application scenario I presented?  If so,
really?


Viable reason? I don't understand that - what do you mean by "reason"?

Are you asking, does the current technique -  G214
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G214> "Using a control to
allow access to content in different orientations which is otherwise
restricted" suffice in meeting this single Success Criteria? Yes - really.
It may not solve ALL problems (and may potentially introduce others), but
it DOES address this problem.

Does it absolve content authors from also having to ensure other aspects of
their content is accessible?

No. But we cannot try and stretch a SC to meet all possible scenarios,
especially when there is a confluence of multiple potential issues. As AWK
noted, it is less than ideal, but IF the content needs to be refreshed, BUT
(and?) the content author is also supporting Success Criterion 3.3.9, then
why would you fail this? And if using that technique DID erase previous
user entered data, well, that's a failure of SC 3.3.9, and NOT of SC 1.3.4.

> Maybe what's missing here is the recognition that multiple other success
criteria will be failed in this scenario, so we don't have to pin the
failure on SC 1.3.4?

Precisely!
WCAG is like a jigsaw puzzle, all of the SC are required to complete the
puzzle, and there is often an inter-dependency of multiple SC contributing
to the accessible experience. For example, to make a video truly accessible
usually requires Captions (SC 1.2.2) AND Audio Description (SC 1.2.3 and/or
SC 1.2.5), and I often argue that for some users (deaf/blind) a full
transcript should also be provided (SC 1.2.3 OR SC 1.2.8 AAA).

A page's content could easily Pass SC 1.2.2 while also failing SC 1.2.5,
and we see this frequently, and yet this rarely comes up as "confusing".
Yet intuitively, we all know that the video isn't "fully" accessible, but
it is partially so. How is that any different than your use-case?

I personally think that a large part of the problem here is that too many
folks dive into Techniques, without stopping and truly thinking about the
normative text of the SC, which for 1.3.4 is pretty simple: content has to
"work" (render, interact, etc.) in either view format, as decided upon by
the end user.

If content authors deliberately lock content into a fixed view, then the
requirement is for the end-user to be able to override that - the old W3C
axiom "author proposes, user disposes". Depending on *how *the author
"locked down" the view however, it may be as simple as invoking a
page-refresh, or it may be more complicated, with a dedicated "unlock"
button/control also furnished by the content author... it all depends on
how the locking is achieved.

I'll also question your use-case (half-finished business license
application) as being fairly niche - I'm not saying that some users might
re-orient their web form after completing half of a form, but that does
strike me as odd... I mean, I could also change the font-face or color or
size midway through a form as well, but (to use your expression), Really?

Nonetheless, if the user does that, and is obligated to do a screen refresh
to get it to render correctly, then it is passing this single SC - nothing
more, nothing less. Nobody is suggesting that this is optimal, but a strict
reading of the SC confirms that at least this one specific SC has been met.
Bravo, 1 down, another 49 to go...

Peace out friend

JF

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 3:24 PM Brooks Newton <brooksallennewton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, so let me get this straight.  Is anyone in this thread saying that
> abandoning the user task and refreshing the page is a viable reason for
> passing SC 1.3.4 - Orientation
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/orientation.html>  in the
> half-finished business license application scenario I presented?  If so,
> really?
>
> How many success criteria do we have in WCAG 2.x that exist primarily to
> prevent users with disabilities from abandoning tasks that may be
> technically possible, but not probable due to user disabilities?   I know
> I'm asking a lot of questions.  This interpretation of SC 1.3.4  having an
> abandon/refresh exception doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of many
> other success criteria in WCAG 2.x.
>
> Maybe what's missing here is the recognition that multiple other success
> criteria will be failed in this scenario, so we don't have to pin the
> failure on SC 1.3.4?  Like Alan, I'm having a difficult time justifying why
> the user scenario I wrote earlier in the thread wouldn't be a hard fail of
> SC 1.3.4, even if a refresh of the page fixed the content or functionality
> in the given display orientation.
>
> Are instructions provided to the user to simply abandon their task and
> refresh that page to get the page working right?  If they aren't provided,
> is that a failure of SC 3.3.2 - Labels or Instructions
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/labels-or-instructions.html>?
> Is it reasonable to expect that a user will just intuitively know that
> refreshing the page is the fix to the problem?  Can you expect the user to
> make that destructive choice when they've put a lot of time and energy into
> what they've already input or interacted with on the page?
>
> Isn't the disproportionate time and energy  required to complete tasks for
> people with certain disabilities the reason for supporting successful
> outcomes that are probable, not just theoretically possible? How long
> should it take for the user to reach that conclusion to throw away page
> progress by refreshing if they are never explicitly directed to do so by
> the content author?
>
> Would this orientation scenario also be a failure of SC 3.3.9 - Redundant
> Entry (WCAG 2.2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#redundant-entry>, in the
> case of a half-filled out application that must be erased and filled out
> again after refresh?
>
> I'm not saying I have all of the answers here - I'm just trying to ask the
> right questions to get closer to consensus.
>
> Brooks Newton
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:49 PM Bristow, Alan <Alan.Bristow@elections.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Giacomo​.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alan
>> . . . . -   . . - - -
>> Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
>> Web Developer / Développeur Web
>> Elections Canada / Élections Canada
>> alan.bristow@elections.ca
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Giacomo Petri <giacomopetri89@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2022 1:07 PM
>> *To:* Marc Haunschild (Accessibility Consulting)
>> *Cc:* John Foliot; Kevin Prince; Ramakrishnan Subramanian;
>> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Query regarding 1.3.4
>>
>> Ce message a été envoyé par un expéditeur externe. Veuillez faire preuve
>> de prudence et ne pas cliquer sur les liens ou ouvrir les pièces jointes à
>> moins de reconnaître l'expéditeur et de savoir que le contenu est sûr.
>>
>> This message was sent from an external sender. Please exercise caution
>> and do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
>> and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> I assumed per 1.3.4 that both orientations work on page load but not
>> while switching from portrait to landscape and vice versa.
>> Especially after reading
>>
>> While the content may work perfectly in both and only fail when
>>> transitioning from one to the other, I see nothing that indicates working
>>> in the initial orientation is all that is needed. By definition orientation
>>> is subject to change, and so it seems pretty clear the intention is content
>>> works in either orientation, including after a change in orientation.
>>>
>>
>> from Alan.
>>
>> This case happens more frequently than expected, especially for animated
>> elements such as sliders or carousels.
>>
>> That's the reason of my feedback and why I've opened
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2771
>>
>>>

-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"