Status messages: an issue with distinguishable guideline perhaps

[Sailesh Panchang]

Greetings,

Here is a link to an article for consideration:
STATUS MESSAGES: IS THERE AN ACCESSIBILITY GAP THAT A NEW SUCCESS
CRITERION SHOULD PLUG?

http://www.mindoversight.com/?p=205
This is supported by two other articles linked off the above.

Thanks,
Sailesh

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Post by Sailesh Panchang
Greetings,
STATUS MESSAGES: IS THERE AN ACCESSIBILITY GAP THAT A NEW SUCCESS
CRITERION SHOULD PLUG?
http://www.mindoversight.com/?p=205
This is supported by two other articles linked off the above.

Isn't that (at least in part) the point of 3.2.6. Status change in WCAG
2.1 ? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#status-changes

[Cohn, Jonathan]

Yes, but now lots of people have clicked on his site increasing his analytics and perhaps providing him some money. Personally I found the post more confusing than the W3C documents that are available, and that is saying something. My apologies in advance for my cynicism.

Post by Sailesh Panchang
Greetings,
STATUS MESSAGES: IS THERE AN ACCESSIBILITY GAP THAT A NEW SUCCESS
CRITERION SHOULD PLUG?
http://www.mindoversight.com/?p=205
This is supported by two other articles linked off the above.

Isn't that (at least in part) the point of 3.2.6. Status change in WCAG
2.1 ? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#status-changes

--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

[Sailesh Panchang]

Hello Patrick,
You asserted on this list that "Isn't that (at least in part) the
point of 3.2.6" so I requested you to indicate the reasoning for that
statement with respect to the SC's specific language in this thread.
The subject of this email or the article it links too do not mention
that SC you pulled into the conversation.
Please feel free to raise it in whatever forum you may need to in
order to support your statement above.
Thanks and best regards,
Sailesh Panchang

How about you ask on list, rather than offlist?

Hi Patrick,
You question: "Isn't that (at least in part) the point of 3.2.6.
Status change in WCAG 2.1 ?"
Sailesh: Please can you point to specific words in that SC that even
begin to hint at what guideline G 1.4 "Distinguishable" requires or
what the article [1] suggests?
[1] http://www.mindoversight.com/?p=205
Please can you read through the related articles too? It is not me but
the normative SC text of 1.3.1 and WG's guidance on "programmatically
determined" that already require what the new SC you mention wishes.
Thanks and best regards,
Sailesh

Post by Patrick H. Lauke

Post by Sailesh Panchang
Greetings,
STATUS MESSAGES: IS THERE AN ACCESSIBILITY GAP THAT A NEW SUCCESS
CRITERION SHOULD PLUG?
http://www.mindoversight.com/?p=205
This is supported by two other articles linked off the above.

Isn't that (at least in part) the point of 3.2.6. Status change in WCAG
2.1 ? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#status-changes
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Post by Sailesh Panchang
Hello Patrick,
You asserted on this list that "Isn't that (at least in part) the
point of 3.2.6" so I requested you to indicate the reasoning for that
statement with respect to the SC's specific language in this thread.
The subject of this email or the article it links too do not mention
that SC you pulled into the conversation.
Please feel free to raise it in whatever forum you may need to in
order to support your statement above.
Thanks and best regards,
Sailesh Panchang

This may be a language issue, but I'm finding your tone here strangely
confrontational.

With that said, re-reading your link I see what you meant was that
status messages / content changes need to be *visually* distinguishable
(where on quick skimming over your question I thought you meant
programmatically clear/announced, which IS covered by 3.2.6).

As for mandating that messages/changes must be sufficiently
distinguishable/clear visually...the problem will be how to normatively
define what "clearly and visually discernible" means. And yes, as the
window for 2.1 has passed, this would have to be in 2.2 or whatever
comes next.

P

[Sailesh Panchang]

Hello Patrick,
I am glad that after you re-read the brief article you agree that
"distinguishable" is not a requirement covered for status messages
in WCAG.
You acknowledged this after I twice requested an explanation for your
assertion. Perhaps this made you characterize the tone as
confrontational when it is not. The language in my emails is harmless.
Yes, visually discernible clearly will need to be worded in an
SC-acceptable language. It is "presentation" (as used in 1.3.1) that
stands out more distinctly sort of.
Best wishes,
Sailesh

Post by Patrick H. Lauke

Post by Sailesh Panchang
Hello Patrick,
You asserted on this list that "Isn't that (at least in part) the
point of 3.2.6" so I requested you to indicate the reasoning for that
statement with respect to the SC's specific language in this thread.
The subject of this email or the article it links too do not mention
that SC you pulled into the conversation.
Please feel free to raise it in whatever forum you may need to in
order to support your statement above.
Thanks and best regards,
Sailesh Panchang

This may be a language issue, but I'm finding your tone here strangely
confrontational.
With that said, re-reading your link I see what you meant was that
status messages / content changes need to be *visually* distinguishable
(where on quick skimming over your question I thought you meant
programmatically clear/announced, which IS covered by 3.2.6).
As for mandating that messages/changes must be sufficiently
distinguishable/clear visually...the problem will be how to normatively
define what "clearly and visually discernible" means. And yes, as the
window for 2.1 has passed, this would have to be in 2.2 or whatever
comes next.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com