4.9 and 4.10 similarities for notifications and updates

[w3c]

4.9 and 4.10 similarities for notifications and updates

[RealJoshue108]

Thanks @dpersing your comments have been helpful! We are always open to suggestions on how to better present, arrange and format our specifications and content. It is a challenge.

[RealJoshue108]

Hi @dpersing we discussed this in the Research Questions Task Force and we need some clarification on your suggestion? In general, as long as there are sensible semantics that can be consumed by assistive technology (as long as they are supported) then the what and the how can to some degree a user agent issue, and down to individual user needs.

In the user needs we mention there are specific needs being call out, and the 'feedback' is being give by different technologies depending on context. So we are not really clear what you are suggesting? Please clarify, thanks.

https://www.w3.org/2020/06/03-rqtf-minutes.html

[dpersing]

I think the confusion may have been caused by a typo, which I've corrected!

4.9 currently focuses on notification methods for magnification users, but uses general "AT" in the requirement. 4.10 then specifically calls out announcing UI updates for screen reader users.

I think question was about the use of the general "AT" or "assistive tech" to describe supports for a specific type of AT that is tied to the specific 4.9 item. Based on other comments, I'm gathering there's a general preference for individual items being tied to specific individual use cases, so I'd update this to just say "magnification" instead of "AT" if that's the case for the specific example.

I do wonder how having items that are specifically tied to types of AT will scale, though, which was, I think, part of my initial concern for a lot of my feedback. As a person who interprets W3C documents for others as part of my job, I find myself doing a lot of reorganizing of content to group things under more general principles, with examples for specific use cases or AT types that can be aligned along multiple success criteria or other items. It might be early for this type of thinking for this document, though, so I'm happy to withdraw comments about extremely granular language if that's not helping at the moment!