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 8:34AM

http://www.maxability.co.in/2018/02/toast-is-it-accessible/
Missed the URL earlier.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Maxability A11Y < <EMAIL REMOVED>
> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>