E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)

From: Matt Gregg
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2018 9:34AM
Subject: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
No previous message | Next message →

Many design systems for web applications (e.g., Google's Material, Salesforce Lightning, IBM's Carbon) include UI components such as toasts or notifications that are configured to disappear after a period of time (typically 3-10 second range). My interpretation of success criteria 2.2.1 would be that these would fail and thus wouldn't conform to WCAG 2.0 in use. The content of the message could disappear before someone could read it for a variety of circumstances. 

https://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/time-limits-required-behaviors.html&urlhash=qEiL&_t=tracking_anet

A similar topic had been discussed previously in a list thread https://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread„68
It lists out some criteria for toasts which includes having them disappear after a time duration as well.

I'm wondering if there is some other interpretation or way to consider this success criteria that I'm missing where these disappearing messages would conform and be highly accessible to the all users? Or, is this scenario not covered by this success criteria for some reason? 

We're working on a design system and have been discussing if we should include this capability for these type of components to disappear after a time period or only support a user having to dismiss them explicitly. 

Thanks,
Matt




Matt Gregg
Manager, User Experience

Blackbaud, Inc.
2000 Daniel Island Drive, Charleston, SC 29492
Phone: 843.654.2979
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | blackbaud.com <http://www.blackbaud.com>;

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2018 9:38AM
Subject: Re: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | Next message →

Matt, giving the user the option to keep them up or disappear on their own, prevent them from appearing, and the duration of appearance are likely preferences/personalization that you will want to build into the settings for your app. No one method will work best for all people.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2018 1:07PM
Subject: Re: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | Next message →

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.

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Jul 12 2018 7:11AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | Next message →

So I was curious about this.

When I read guideline 2.2 (Enough Time), it does mention that it is essential to give users enough time to read information. I would think that would mean that the required user action/task refers to the idea that, in order for the user to be able to utilize the toast, they need enough time to be able to read the information in the toast?

Thanks,
Tim

From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Jul 12 2018 1:43PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes, it could be interpreted that way, but if a toast message really has
information that needs to be read within a certain time period, then
perhaps using a toast message is not appropriate. That's why I tried to
qualify my previous response by saying that a "toast is being used for its
intended purpose".

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Tim Harshbarger <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> So I was curious about this.
>
> When I read guideline 2.2 (Enough Time), it does mention that it is
> essential to give users enough time to read information. I would think
> that would mean that the required user action/task refers to the idea that,
> in order for the user to be able to utilize the toast, they need enough
> time to be able to read the information in the toast?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>

From: Matt Gregg
Date: Thu, Jul 12 2018 8:46PM
Subject: Re: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS 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.

From: Maxability A11Y
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2018 8:33AM
Subject: Re: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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.
>
>
>
> > > > >

From: Maxability A11Y
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2018 8:34AM
Subject: Re: UI toasts, notifications and conforming to time limits (2.2.1)
← Previous message | No next message

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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>