Thread Subject: Re: Auto-updating

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 1:30 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Peter Wallack: "Re: Auto-updating"
• Previous message in thread: Jared Smith: "Auto-updating"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Again, I'm just capturing some issues and thoughts from today's call
to spur discussion.

- I have concerns that 'auto-updating' is overly expansive as it may
include areas of screen reader accessibility that can be addressed, at
least partially, using existing techniques and WAI-ARIA.

- It appears that the intention of this in WCAG 2.0 is *not* for
screen readers at all -
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20070730/time-limits-pause.html
- but we seem to agree that auto-updating does expand it's
applicability to screen readers.

- The definition of 'auto-updating' provided by Sean and Andi -
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Definitions#In_process_definitions
- *mostly* addresses these issues by limiting it to visual changes.

Here is what I would recommend:
"A mechanism must be provided to pause information that moves, blinks,
scrolls, animates, or changes visually for more than three seconds
and/or repeatedly over time unless it is part of an activity where
timing or movement is essential. A mechanism must be provided to stop
or hide moving content that is pure decoration."

Note: Moving or changing content may also introduce issues for screen
readers. Techniques, such as WAI-ARIA live regions, for limiting
screen reader interference should be implemented when appropriate.


* This reintroduces the 3 second buffer to allow visual cues to draw
cognitive focus to relevant content.
* It replaces 'auto-updating' with 'changes visually repeatedly over
time'. This addresses my concerns and is much better than "continually
changing". It also removes the need for a definition. 'Over time' may
need additional clarification, though I'm not sure how to define a
threshold.
* The note addresses screen reader issues. It could certainly be expanded.
* Clarifies that animation is included.
* Adds the option to hide decorative stuff.

Jared Smith


On 8/14/07, Jared Smith wrote:
>
> Seeing as it will likely be impossible to identify a threshold for
> frequency of changes, I have two possible recommendations:
>
> OPTION 1:
> Remove the word 'auto-updating' entirely.
>
> OPTION 2:
> Replace 'auto-updating' with 'continually changing' or 'constantly
> changing' or some other measure that indicates it happens often enough
> to be a problem.

• Next message in Thread: Peter Wallack: "Re: Auto-updating"
• Previous message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Auto-updating"