Interruptions about wcag21 HOT 21 CLOSED

To get rid of the bullets I suggest rewording to
2.2.4 Interruptions: There is an easily available mechanism to postpone and suppress interruptions and changes in content unless they are initiated by the user or involve anֲ emergency
Level AA

Ia there any reason that this should not be AA?

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

Hello @johnfoliot

easily available (or easily available mode or setting) is defined above as

one or more of the following are true:

•  can be set one time with as wide a scope as possible (such as using the standards of the OS, From ISO 9241-112 or GPII when available)
  

•   has the option to save or change the setting, where available interoperably, but also for the scope of the set of web pages
  

•    is reachable from each screen where it may be needed, and the path and the control conforms to all of this document
  

Is that clear enough?
Thanks for the feedback ...L

from wcag21.

losing the number to conform with the stand alone requirement

from wcag21.

Is this not currently covered by 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable and/or would some of this not overlap with 2.2.1/warrant extending the wording of 2.2.1?

from wcag21.

@patrickhlauke It is realy a different problem. Here it is not a time out, but an interruption such as a message or other items that de-focues the user. If someone has a bad short term memory and losses focus easily then these sudden pop ups with offers or messages are realy debilitating.
Does that make sence?
Also we have been told not to change the wording of exsisting SC

from wcag21.

to greggs comment on the list. Loading a page that the user has asked to go to is not an interruption. Clicking on a link is a user initiated action. Do you want us to add that to the SC text or to the description ?

from wcag21.

an interruption such as a message or other items that de-focues the user

ah, gotcha. sorry, i misread current 2.2.1's understanding where it mentioned "changes of content" as "changes of context".

from wcag21.

that makes sense...

from wcag21.

Wondering if this needs some extra clarification / distinction between visual users and screen reader users. Unless actual focus (in the programmatic/user agent sense) isn't moved to whatever has changed/appeared, non-sighted screen reader users may actually be at an advantage here and not get distracted the same way that sighted users do, but we still want to make sure that this situation is a clear fail.

Apart from that this looks reasonably good to me :)

from wcag21.

@lseeman Is there a PR ready to go on this or do you need more time?

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

My concern surrounds the use of the word "emergency." There seems to me to be a fairly large amount of communication outside this definition that a user could benefit from. Examples:

• in an application that includes meeting functions, I'm reminded that I have a meeting beginning now
• in an app that has error control, I'm notified that my entry for a field is unacceptable
• in a password field, I'm notified that my caps lock is on

Is the intent that all forms of communication from an app can be turned off by the user?

On a different topic, is interruption defined somewhere? That may get me to a better understanding of what constitutes an interruption. Otherwise I need some clarity on where in a continuum something becomes an interruption, such as:

1. a dialog that takes focus
2. a bubble/tooltip that appears but does not take focus
3. new text that appears on screen without taking focus
4. changes in colour and iconography that signal an error

from wcag21.

Just reabsorbing this, and getting a better handle on how this is an update/replacement of a current SC. Your first bullet provides a bit more context for my question on interruption:

no content should be added to or replace the content in the current context unless the additions or replacement are initiated by the user

So my read on this is that you would consider all 4 of the items I listed in my prior comment to be interruptions and they could not occur if a user chose to suppress them. Correct?

from wcag21.

emergency and interruptions is already in wcag 2.0 so we do not need to define it again

from wcag21.

we need to use rewording to make it a new sc (stand alone)

from wcag21.

emergency and interruptions is already in wcag 2.0 so we do not need to define it again

I don't see a definition of Interruptions in 2.0, only Emergency. Regardless of the term being used in as AAA SC last time, if you are proposing moving such language into A or AA, we need to get better clarity.

It's pretty clear that anything that takes focus would be an interruption, but can you confirm that

no content should be added to or replace the content in the current context unless the additions or replacement are initiated by the user

would mean all of the following would be prevented from occurring?

• a bubble/tooltip that appears but does not take focus
• new text that appears on screen without taking focus (i.e., "Caps lock is on")
• changes in colour and iconography that signal an error without taking focus

from wcag21.

8 Further pop-ups and similar distractions must always be easy to close and avoid so that all people can continue their task.

So should this concept be worked in somewhere? Or are you saying this is already addressed by another SC?

from wcag21.

Pull request at #98
Comments should go there moving forward.

from wcag21.

Updated the issue description to reflect the FPWD text and reopening issue.

from wcag21.

Would like to see any potential conflict with WCAG 2.0 SC 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable addressed. Thanks to Alex Li for raising this at TPAC.

from wcag21.