WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)

for

From: Maxability A11Y
Date: Jul 17, 2018 8:33AM

Sorry, I was late in responding to this thread. I tried putting together my
observations on toaste accessibility. You might be interested in having a
look at it.

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Matt Gregg < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> Thanks. My reading of the first part of intent covers any content that
> needs to be read or acted on:
> "are given adequate time to interact with Web content whenever possible."
> "may require more time to read content or to perform functions such as
> filling out on-line forms."
> Which is why I've been surprised to see this in so many design systems
> with this and the dilemma we're (or I'm) having. A toast or notification is
> to give the user a message so it's intended purpose seems fall within this
> no?
>
> To Jonathan's point, I see there could be avenues to explore around
> allowing users to turn this off, adjust, or extend as enumerated in the
> criterion. I just wanted to see if my interpretation was incorrect or there
> was another consensus view about this success criteria which would support
> having these disappearing UI messages. The turn off, adjust, or extend
> seems potentially tricky to do well too but haven't started down that path
> yet to find a solution that supports disappearing toasts/notifications and
> these preferences in a simple solution that doesn't add complexity for
> everyone using it.
> Anyone seen any good examples they'd point to which support this?
>
> Matt
>
>
> On 7/11/18, 3:07 PM, "glen walker" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> Matt, we also discussed this same timing question on slack recently
> (July
> 4th).
>
> https://web-a11y.slack.com/archives/C042TSFGN/p1530688615000057
>
> Eric posted the question and then I replied and then there were a
> couple
> follow-ups. My personal opinion was that a toast message does not
> violate
> 2.2.1, provided the toast is being used for its intended purpose, but
> that
> preference settings were a good idea (as Jonathan mentioned here). I
> also
> mentioned having an "earcon" option for the toast.
>
> The key phrase in the "Understanding" section (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/time-
> limits-required-behaviors.html)
> was:
>
> "If Web functions are time-dependent, it will be difficult for some
> users
> > to perform the required action before a time limit occurs."
> >
>
> There shouldn't be any "required actions" in the toast message. It's
> just
> an informal, "by the way" type message, that if ignored, does not hurt
> anything.
>
>
>
> > > > >