Closed lseeman closed 7 years ago
I will sign up as SC manager for this issue.
Thanks @rachaelbradley I've added this to https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1#Current_SC_Managers
This really needs coordination with Issue 2 (before Issue 3). This is stated more clearly, but it may not be as easy to implement. I like it.
I agree it needs coordination but I'm not sure it needs to be merged. I've added comments on issue #2.
The SC says that the rapid feedback should be "visual" and "in the primary modalities of the content". When the primary modality of the content is visual this is tautological. However, when the primary modality is audible then this is a contradiction. I think that the "visual" is superfluous.
The final wording "Audio feedback is supported." seems to be very problematic. Firstly what exactly does it mean and secondly is it realistic to ask for it.
The glossary entry for "audio feedback" is a lengthy discussion of the merits and demerits of audio and visual feedback - a glossary entry should really define the term, so the current text is not suitable.
In comparing issue #2 and issue #54 David MacDonald states that the SC "asks for audio feedback without Assistive Technology, and it calls for the user to have a choice in this... but ONLY for actions that result in success or failure." and in proposing a merger of the two SCs he left out "the requirement for Non AT audio feedback, which is really hard."
Perhaps we should reassess how wise it is to include this. If it is included it needs to be made much clearer what is being asked for and also what needs to be tested - currently audio feedback is not mentioned in the testability section (and neither is testing to see if the feedback modality matches the primary content modality).
@mapluke and @lseeman What are your thoughts on moving the audio feedback into a separate AAA SC vs dropping it? My understanding is that the audio version of feedback can be important to support some cognitive disabilities but that the technology may not be standard enough for us to make this an A or AA standard at this time.
Dont drop it. we can make sure the technology is ready by the time it goes to CRat worst laible that section at risk. Can we label one part of one Sc at risk?
Also it is , of course, completely doable today via short MP3's with a small javascript to make it optional. most programmers can do that in a day and it will be in stack overflow soon enough and then everyone can just copy the script. It is just not idea now and a more work and , as I said , we can make it ready via a browser plug in by CR. The semantics are already freely available at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
---- On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:43:12 +0200 rachaelbradley<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
@mapluke and @lseeman What are your thoughts on moving the audio feedback into a separate AAA SC vs dropping it? My understanding is that the audio version of feedback can be important to support some cognitive disabilities but that the technology may not be standard enough for us to make this an A or AA standard at this time. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
It is addressed via the new personlization semantics . I think it is in the blurb
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
---- On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:43:35 +0200 mapluke<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
The final wording "Audio feedback is supported." seems to be very problematic. Firstly what exactly does it mean and secondly is it realistic to ask for it. The glossary entry for "audio feedback" is a lengthy discussion of the merits and demerits of audio and visual feedback - a glossary entry should really define the term, so the current text is not suitable. In comparing issue #2 and issue #54 David MacDonald states that the SC "asks for audio feedback without Assistive Technology, and it calls for the user to have a choice in this... but ONLY for actions that result in success or failure." and in proposing a merger of the two SCs he left out "the requirement for Non AT audio feedback, which is really hard." Perhaps we should reassess how wise it is to include this. If it is included it needs to be made much clearer what is being asked for and also what needs to be tested - currently audio feedback is not mentioned in the testability section (and neither is testing to see if the feedback modality matches the primary content modality). — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
I'm not directly advocating that we drop the "Audio feedback is supported", but:
If we can't meet these minimum requirements then something needs to be done about it or it will risk the whole SC (e.g. marked as a sub-element that is at risk (if this is permissable); moved to a separate AAA requirement, or dropped).
Mike, the testability secsion is not full tests, just to give additional information on how to test it if needed. this is easy to human test. All you needed to do is add the word "auditory" to the test and you have it. -Confirm there is a setting auditory feedback, set it for auditory feedback
I think "auditory feedback "ids very clear. It means the notification is available though sound. If you do not think that is clear, maybe take a stab at a better definition.
We also only need the technique heading at this point. we do not need the full technique
Lisa, for the auditory feedback, based on the changes, I believe a sound defined to indicate success (the beeping when an outlook message sends for example) is acceptable and it does not need to be words. Do you agree or have I missed the point?
@rachaelbradley I see this is still in active discussion. Do you think you will be soon in a position to submit a PR or do you need more time? @lseeman
I still do not see an answer to my concern that it is not possible for the feedback to be both "visual" and "in the primary modalities of the content" if the primary modality of the content (however that is determined) is auditory.
I also still think that the "Audio feedback is supported." is not clear. Does this mean that audio feedback should be available to supplement any visual feedback or does it mean that it should replace that feedback. I'm also not too sure how wise it is to propose a solution that is based upon the prospect that suitable technology will be (easily and widely?) available by the time WCAG 2.1 is published.
Until we have solid and convincing answers to these questions I fear that doing a PR and surveying the proposal is likely to lead to another negative reaction.
Maybe we could talk. I manage #2 and I think they are different. Both say there must be notification. #54 seems to be more specific about how.
I don't see how #54 could work without #2 but they are both necessary.
Wayne
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, mapluke notifications@github.com wrote:
I still do not see an answer to my concern that it is not possible for the feedback to be both "visual" and "in the primary modalities of the content" if the primary modality of the content (however that is determined) is auditory.
I also still think that the "Audio feedback is supported." is not clear. Does this mean that audio feedback should be available to supplement any visual feedback or does it mean that it should replace that feedback. I'm also not too sure how wise it is to propose a solution that is based upon the prospect that suitable technology will be (easily and widely?) available by the time WCAG 2.1 is published.
Until we have solid and convincing answers to these questions I fear that doing a PR and surveying the proposal is likely to lead to another negative reaction.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/54#issuecomment-277487400, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH0OF96-CO7bYQ4gLSP_fSw9q8zJ2JEJks5rZRJMgaJpZM4K9Jlt .
sure. wayne and mike, can you ping me some available times tomorrow or tuesdayto lisa.seeman@zoho.com
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
---- On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 03:38:11 +0200 WayneEDick<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
Maybe we could talk. I manage #2 and I think they are different. Both say there must be notification. #54 seems to be more specific about how.
I don't see how #54 could work without #2 but they are both necessary.
Wayne
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:05 PM, mapluke <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> I still do not see an answer to my concern that it is not possible for the > feedback to be both "visual" and "in the primary modalities of the > content" if the primary modality of the content (however that is > determined) is auditory. > > I also still think that the "Audio feedback is supported." is not clear. > Does this mean that audio feedback should be available to supplement any > visual feedback or does it mean that it should replace that feedback. I'm > also not too sure how wise it is to propose a solution that is based upon > the prospect that suitable technology will be (easily and widely?) > available by the time WCAG 2.1 is published. > > Until we have solid and convincing answers to these questions I fear that > doing a PR and surveying the proposal is likely to lead to another negative > reaction. > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/54#issuecomment-277487400>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH0OF96-CO7bYQ4gLSP_fSw9q8zJ2JEJks5rZRJMgaJpZM4K9Jlt> > . > — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
Is it possible for all four of us to talk tomorrow? I think the questions on the table are:
Sure.What time are you free ? Contact me on skype or lisa.seeman@zoho. com
---- On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 22:07:28 +0200 rachaelbradley<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
Is it possible for all four of us to talk tomorrow? I think the questions on the table are: Are both #2 and #54 needed? I personally side with Wayne that both are needed but I know others disagree. If both are needed, what else is needed to differentiate between them? Define audio feedback (Draft definition: Sound-based information provided independent of assistive technology. Feedback may use speech or consistently applied sounds to convey information. ) What conditions require audio feedback (or which do not)? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
I could talk immediately after the COGA call. Alternatively, with a bit of notice I might be able to take part no more than an hour before the COGA call. I too am available on Skype (mapluke).
Revision based on conversation. We will break this into two SC: (AA) Feedback The success or failure of every user initiated action is clearly indicated to the user by through consistent, programmatically-determinable, rapid feedback in the primary modalities of the content.
Note: If the content is primarily visual, than feedback should be visual. If the content is primarily auditory, feedback should be auditory.
(AAA) Auditory Feedback When visual feedback is provided, auditory feedback is also supported.
Definition Auditory Feedback: Sound-based information provided without requiring a screenreader. Feedback may use speech or consistently applied sounds to convey information.
Current version of SC and Definitions
SC for viewing | SC for editing
SC in full draft guideline
Feedback
working groups notes (optional)