wicg / accessible-notifications

ARIA Accessible Notifications

accessible-notifications explainer

This is the repository for ARIA Accessible Notifications. You're welcome to contribute!

To fill this out, please see: https://github.com/w3ctag/w3ctag.github.io/blob/master/explainers.md

Authors:

• @douggeoffray

Introduction

Abstract

For people who are blind or low vision, identifying dynamic changes (non-user-initiated) in the content of a web app is very challenging. ARIA live regions are the only mechanism available today that communicate content changes down to the accessibility layer so that users can hear about them. ARIA live regions are inconsistently implemented, have poor developer ergonomics, and are being used in ways that they weren’t designed for (e.g., as a confirmation of action or notification-like API for changes unrelated to “live regions”). We propose an imperative notification API designed to replace the usage of ARIA live regions in scenarios where a visual “live region” isn’t necessary.

Intro

Screen readers provide an audible presentation of web content for various kinds of users with disabilities (e.g., those with limited or no vision). The screen reader knows what to say based on the semantic structure of a document. Screen readers move through the content much the same way a sighted user might scan through the document with their eyes. When something about the document changes (above the fold), sighted users are quick to notice the change. When something below the fold (offscreen) changes, sighted users have no way of knowing that there was a change nor how important a change it might be. This latter case is the conundrum for non-sighted users in general: how and when should changes in the content be brought to their attention?

Screen readers and content authors work together to try and solve this problem. One way screen readers are informed about content changes is through ARIA live regions. A live region is an element (and its children) that is expected to change dynamically (such as a message chat), and for which the changes should be announced to the user.

The design of live regions is intended to give maximum flexibility to screen readers to implement an experience that is best for their users. Web authors provide hints via attributes on the live region element in order to influence the spoken output, such as:

• aria-atomic should the whole text content of the element be notified or just the changes since the last update?
• aria-relevant which content changes are relevant for the notification? Additions or removals (or both)?
• aria-busy signals that a batch of changes are coming and to wait until the batch is complete before notifying.
• aria-live a general signal of the priority of the region’s changes: “assertive” or “polite”.

Problems with Consistency and Predictability

Content authors have a difficult time creating consistent and predictable notification experiences for their users with accessibility needs even with the above-mentioned controls. One of the reasons is due to the variation in screen reader implementation approaches. In other cases, the inner workings of a browser’s accessibility tree are the source of the problem. Some examples:

1. Screen reader output varies greatly depending on the complexity of the live region’s content (e.g., elements and nested elements). To get consistency, content authors will strip-out all the richness (and semantics) of the HTML content in the live region, leaving only text in hopes of getting a more uniform experience.
2. When content authors update the DOM in a live region, those changes may or may not get sent by the browser to a screen reader. In one case, it was discovered that the browser’s implementation was not properly detecting changes to the live region.
3. The available priority controls (“assertive” vs. “polite”) are not well specified and are up to the interpretation of screen readers. In one instance, an author wanted to make a live region announcement immediately following a user action to supplement it with related context. However, the “polite” setting was too polite; a subsequent focus change would always mute the announcement. The “assertive” setting was too assertive and caused subsequent (important) focus change context to be lost while the assertive announcement was made.

Content authors still rely on live regions because that is the only tool available for the job. They do the best that they can, resorting to ugly “hacks”, fragile coding patterns, and blatant misuse of ARIA live regions. There is a better way.

Additional Concerns

• Live regions are built around the assumption that a visual change needs to be announced, hence they are tightly coupled with DOM nodes. Many changes important to announce are not necessarily tied to a visual action. In these cases, “live region hacks” are employed using offscreen DOM nodes to host the live region – there is no surrounding context (an important consideration for many screen readers), nor any area to focus (for low-vision users).
• Offscreen live regions (see above) do not play a visual role in the content’s presentation and as a result are subject to second-class treatment. They can be forgotten about during content updates, accidentally broken due to missing testing, or simply relegated to an “accessible version” of the site, usually because of performance overhead concerns. Accessibility should be designed into the content experience from the start, not bolted-on as an extra or add-on feature.

Use Cases

Keyboard action confirmation

Keyboard commands (especially those without a corresponding UI affordance) when activated may need to confirm the associated state change with the user. The following cases are variations on this theme:

1. Glow text command: User is editing text, highlights a word and presses Shift+Alt+Y which makes it glow blue. No UI elements were triggered or changed state, but the user should hear some confirmation that the action was successful, such as “selected text glowing blue.”

2. Set Presence: In a chat application, the user presses Shift+Alt+4 to toggle their presence state to “do not disturb”. The application responds with “presence set to do not disturb.”

   2.1. Most recent notification priority: The user presses Shift+Alt+3 by mistake, and then quickly presses Shift+Alt+4. The application began to respond with “presence…” [set to busy] but interrupts itself with the latest response “presence set to do not disturb.” 2.2. Overall priority: The user presses Shift+Alt+4, then immediately issues a command to the screen reader to jump to the next header. The response “presence set to do not disturb” may be skipped, deferred, interrupted, or pre-empted by the announcement of the focus change event depending on the content author’s design.

3. Filter editing confirmations: User is editing text using bold, italic, underline, etc.. By default, the application responds with confirmations such as “bold on” / “bold off” as they toggle each state. As the application sends the confirmation for the user’s actions, it also attached a unique identifier indicating the string is a confirmation for a basic editing command. Based on this identifier, the screen reader gives their users the following choices:

   3.1. Speak and Braille the confirmation notice, as normal 3.2. Speak but do not flash the confirmation in Braille 3.3. Filter/suppress the entire confirmation from speech and Braille 3.4. Replace speech with a quick confirmation tone 3.5. Any other option the screen reader believes would be beneficial to their users

Failed or delayed actions

According to common screen reader etiquette, user actions where the context is clear are assumed to be successful by virtue of issuing the command to do the action itself (no specific confirmation of the action is needed); however, if the action fails, is delayed, or no focus or state changes are generated, the user should then be notified. Otherwise, the user’s understanding about the state of the app could be wrong.

1. Longer than usual: User composes an email and presses send. In normal circumstances, the message is sent, and a focus change occurs (no confirmation of “sent” is needed). However, due to networking conditions, the send action is taking longer than usual. The user hears “message is taking longer than usual to send”.
2. Fail to paste: User thought they had copied some text onto the clipboard, but in the context of editing, when they issue the “paste” keyboard shortcut, nothing is in the clipboard. As a result, nothing pastes into the app. The app triggers the screen reader to announce the failed action: “nothing to paste”.

Secondary actions

In addition to a primary (implicit) action, some actions have secondary or follow-up effects that should be announced beyond the immediate effect of the primary action.

1. Auto fill: In a spreadsheet, an action that sets a cell’s value may be assumed to happen (no announcement) or could be announced as a side-effect of changing the cell’s value (e.g., using a live region). In either case, this would be the normal expectation for the user. However, as a result of setting the value, the spreadsheet takes a secondary action of autofilling a range of corresponding values in the cell’s column. The screen reader links the announcement “autofilled values in cells A2 through A20” to the user’s last action and ensures they are correlated.

Goals

• Offer an alternative to “offscreen live region” scenarios that:
  • serves content authors’ needs first; has easy-to-use developer ergonomics
  • solves the consistency and predictability problems of live regions
• Provide a design framework for improvements to live regions as a “declarative version” of the notification API.
  • removes guesswork on what to speak from a DOM node by providing an exact string
  • provides context of what the string represents

Proposed Solution

A new API, ariaNotify, enables content authors to directly tell a screen reader what to read. The behavior would be similar to an ARIA live region, but without the guesswork and previously described inconsistencies in processing. In the simplest scenario, the content author calls ariaNotify with a string to read. The language of the string is assumed to match the document’s language. The function can be called from the document or from an element. When called from an element, the element’s nearest ancestor’s lang attribute is used to infer the language.

ariaNotify is an asynchronous API. There is no guarantee that a screen reader will read the text at that moment, nor is there a way to know that a screen reader is available at all! Well-designed web applications will use ariaNotify to provide appropriate notifications for accessibility whether or not their users require a screen reader or not.

Example 1:

    // Dispatch a message associated with the document:
    document.ariaNotify( "John Doe is connected" );

    // Dispatch a message associated with an element:
    document.querySelector("#richEditRegion1").ariaNotify( "Selected text glowing blue" );

ariaNotify does not return a value. The call to the API has no web-observable side effects, and its use should not infer that the user is using assistive technology.

The above code immediately dispatches the first notification to the platform API with designation to the document node. The second notification then follows with designation to the “#richEditRegion1” node element. It can be assumed that the platform API will dispatch the notifications in the order received to any listening assistive technology, i.e. screen reader.

A screen reader must not only manage notifications from ariaNotify, but it also must manage all of the messages from other sources, such as the OS, other applications, input keystrokes from the user, focus changes, ARIA live region updates, etc. This explainer does not specify nor constrain the screen reader regarding the ordering of ariaNotify notifications with respect to these other messages that exist in some total order of the screen reader’s message queue.

Screen reader customizations for user preference

Screen readers offer the flexibility to customize the notification experience for their users. Customization options for user preferences include disabling, prioritizing, filtering, and providing alternate output for notifications (such as the concept of earcons. Without additional context, only two customization options can be offered: options that apply to all ariaNotify notifications universally or customization on a per-notification-string basis.

To aid in customization, ariaNotify provides a method to give context of the notification notificationID. This explainer provides a set of potential suggestions but allows for arbitrary non-localized strings to be used by the content author. All strings will be processed by the user agent according to a fixed algorithm (ASCII encode, then ASCII lowercase, and finally, strip leading and trailing ASCII whitespace) before the notification is sent to the platform API (invalid strings will throw an exception).

When no notificationID is explicitly provided by the content author, the notificationID is set to “notify” by default.

To specify a notificationID, pass the string as the second parameter. Alternatively, the notificationID may be expressed in an object form with property notificationID. For example:

Example 2:

    // Notify of a long-running async task starting and ending
    document.ariaNotify( "Uploading file untitled-1 to the cloud.", "task-progress-started" );

    // …

    myfile.asyncFileUpload().then( () => {
        document.ariaNotify( "File untitled-1 uploaded.", { notificationID: "task-progress-finished" } );
    } );

Screen readers may allow their users to filter out these task-progress notificationIDs, may make these notifications only available at particular verbosity levels, or may replace the output strings with audio cues.

Managing pending notifications

Given that each call to ariaNotify will immediately dispatch the message to the platform notification API, and the platform notification API will immediately dispatch to all registered listeners (i.e. screen readers), the screen reader will effectively prioritize and queue up the notifications, as it may not be able to fully dispatch (i.e. speak/Braille) the current notification before a new notification arrives. Each screen reader is responsible for managing the prioritization and queuing of the notifications, along with all other system notifications, etc.

ariaNotify will also support priority information (i.e. place the notification ahead or behind pending notifications) along with interruptibility implications (i.e. silence the currently speaking notification and/or flush pending notifications). This is determined using the priority and interrupt properties.

More specifically, the priority property can be used to ensure the notification is placed ahead of lesser priority notifications.

• Priority indicates where the screen reader should add the notification in relationship to any existing pending notifications.
  • important
    • Screen reader should add this string to the end of any other pending important notifications but before all non-important pending notifications
  • none - (default)
    • Screen reader should add this string to the end of all pending notifications.

Example 3:

    //Dispatch a notification updating background task status – low priority
    Document.ariaNotify( “Background task completed”, { “priority”:”none”, “notificationID”:”StatusUpdate” });

    //Dispatch a high priority notification that data may be lost
    Document.ariaNotify(“Unable to save changes, lost connection to server”, { “priority”:”important”, “notificationID”:”ServerError” });

Assuming the initial low priority string hasn’t already started to be acted upon (spoken/Brailled), the high priority item is guaranteed to be placed ahead of the lower priority and will be processed first, followed by the lower priority notification. This ensures that important messages that the user should be aware of are processed and are supplied to the user first.

Example 4:

    // User has initiated an action which starts a generation process of data. During the status of the generation,
    // a more critical status needs to be sent to the user
    document.querySelector("#dataStatus”).ariaNotify( “generating content “ ( “notificationID”:”statusUpdate” });

    // …

    document.querySelector("#dataStatus”).ariaNotify( “processing data “, { “notificationID”:”statusUpdate” });

    // …

    document.querySelector("#dataStatus”).ariaNotify( “counting items “, { “notificationID”:”statusUpdate” } );

    // …

    Document.ariaNotify( “ server connection lost “, { “priority”:”important”,  “notificationID”:”serverStatus” } );

As content is being generated, the user is informed of that status. When something more serious occurs, such as losing server access, the server error is prioritized above any pending status updates.

Along with the priority, the web author also has control over whether or not the screen reader should silence an existing notification that is being spoken and/or flush pending notifications waiting to be processed. This is handled through the interrupt property.

• interrupt indicates whether or not the screen reader should interrupt an existing notification from speaking and whether or not it should remove any other pending notifications. Note that the functionality of interrupt is dependent on the source, priority, and interrupt settings of the current and pending notifications.
  • none - (default)
    • Do not interrupt anything and do not flush any pending notifications. Simply add the notification to pending notifications as per its priority.
  • all
    • Step 1: If a notification with the same source, priority, and interrupt (all) is speaking, immediately silence that string.
    • Step 2: If any pending notifications with the same source, priority, and interrupt (all) are being held, remove/flush all of them.
    • Step 3: Add the notification to pending notifications as per its priority.
  • pending
    • Step 1: If a notification with the same source, priority, and interrupt (pending) is speaking, allow the current notification being spoken to fully complete.
    • Step 2: If any pending notification with the same source, priority, and interrupt (pending) is being held, remove/flush all of them.
    • Step 3: Add the notification to pending notifications as per its priority.

ariaNotify can allow more scenarios than Live Regions. Here is a simple example showing three outcomes for the same scenario (a progress bar which reports its status at every percent increment):

Example 5.1: interrupt:none - Every progress bar percentage from 1% to 100% will be spoken.

    // ...

    Let percent = 0;
    Function simulateProgress() {
        percent += 1;
        UpdateProgressBarVisual(percent)

        // Report progress to ariaNotify. interrupt none will cause each percent update to be fully spoken
        document.querySelector("#progressBar”).ariaNotify( “Progress is ${currentValue}“, { “notificationID”:”progressBar”, “priority”:”none”, “interrupt”:”none” });
        if (percent < 100) {
            setTimeout(simulateProgress, 100);
        }
}

Example 5.2: interrupt:all - Each new progress bar percentage will interrupt/silence the currently speaking percentage, flush any pending percentages, and add the latest. Because the percentage is likely updating before each percentage fully speaks, the user will either hear nothing or the first part of each/some percentage until the last is processed where the user will hear the full string “Progress is 100”.

    // …

    Let percent = 0;
    Function simulateProgress() {
        percent += 1;
        UpdateProgressBarVisual(percent)

        // Report progress to ariaNotify. interrupt all will cause each percentage update to interrupt any existing
        // percentage that may be speaking, flush any pending percentages, and add the latest
        document.querySelector("#progressBar”).ariaNotify( “Progress is ${currentValue}“, { “notificationID”:”progressBar”, “priority”:”none”, “interrupt”:”all” });
        if (percent < 100) {
            setTimeout(simulateProgress, 100);
        }
}

Example 5.3: interrupt:pending – Assuming the first percentage “Progress is 1” is processed and sent to the synthesizer before the next percentage is sent, it will be completely spoken. Regardless, while any percentage is being spoken, that percentage will be allowed to finish speaking, other pending percentages sent to ariaNotify will be thrown out, and the latest percentage will be added.

How long it takes to speak the current percentage will determine the number of subsequent percentages that will be skipped. A slower speech rate will cause more percentages to be ignored. A faster speech rate will allow more percentages to be spoken. When the current percentage fully speaks, the next percentage that was allowed to be held will speak, and the process will repeat. Finally, the last percentage “Progress is 100” will be spoken.

    //…

    Let percent = 0;
    Function simulateProgress() {
        percent += 1;
        UpdateProgressBarVisual(percent)

        // Report progress to ariaNotify. interrupt pending will allow the current percentage to finish speaking,
        // flush any pending percentages, and add the latest
        document.querySelector(“#progressBar”).ariaNotify( “Progress is ${currentValue}“, { “notificationID”:”progressBar”, “priority”:”none”, “interrupt”:”pending” });
        if (percent < 100) {
            setTimeout(simulateProgress, 100);
        }
}

The only difference between the three snippets is the interrupt setting. Each of the three settings produces a big experience difference for the user.

iframes and use in subresources

As iframes and other embedded content comes from external sources, web authors of the top-level context will not be permitted to add notifications within the embedded content.

On the other hand, the web authors of the iframe will be able to add notifications to their content. In order for these notifications to propagate to the top-level browsing context, we will require a Permission Policy with a new policy name, tentatively EmbeddedAriaNotificationsEnabled (TBD).

Relationship to ARIA Live Regions

There are some similarities between ariaNotify and the existing ARIA live regions. This section maps the existing ARIA live region configuration attributes to the options available with ariaNotify:

• aria-live=”assertive” is the equivalent of priority: important and interrupt: none
• aria-live=”polite” is the equivalent of priority: none and interrupt: none

Beyond the above, the additional functionality provided by ariaNotify is not supported and cannot be mapped back directly to ARIA live regions.

Fallback

In the case of assistive tools that do not yet support ariaNotify, we propose the following fallback mechanism using the same backend as the existing ARIA live regions:

1. The message payload for ariaNotify is equivalent to the contents of an ARIA live region.
2. The notificationID is dropped entirely.
3. “priority: important” and “priority: none” correspond to aria-live=”assertive” and aria-live=”polite” ARIA live attributes, respectively.
4. ARIA live regions do not support interruptibility, so all behavior of interrupt defaults to none.

Note that there is no exact mapping of ariaNotify back to ARIA live regions, and our proposal reflects a best effort to achieve similar behavior. There are cases where we will not be able to get the intended behavior using ARIA live regions. For example:

    element.ariaNotify(“This message is normal.”, { “priority”: “none”, “interrupt”: “none”);
    element.ariaNotify(“This message should interrupt”, { “priority”: “none”, “interrupt”: “all” });

In the above case, when ariaNotify is supported, the expected behavior would be for the second notification to silence the current one and flush all other queued notifications from element with “priority: none”. However, the fallback is not able to silence or flush existing notifications, as that behavior is not supported in ARIA live regions.

In the case that the web browser does not yet support ariaNotify, it is the responsibility of the web author to detect and fallback to ARIA live regions. The above conversion may serve as a guide on how to do so. One can detect whether or not ariaNotify is supported by checking if the method exists on the document or element in question:

    If (“ariaNotify” in element) {
        element.ariaNotify(…);
    }

Open Issues

Predefined notificationIDs

The use of notificationIDs give the screen reader contextual information regarding the notification which allows for creative approaches to dispatching the information to their users. The question then arises of whether the API should create a predetermined set of notificationID names for common/expected scenarios or whether having predefined names is pointless given no matter the list, it will always fall short.

Possible examples of predefined notificationIDs could be something like:

• Recent action completion status: action-completion-success, action-completion-warning, action-completion-failure
• Async/indeterminate task progress: task-progress-started, task-progress-ongoing, task-progress-blocked, task-progress-canceled, task-progress-finished
• Navigational boundary endpoints: boundary-beginning, boundary-middle, boundary-end
• Value-relative state changes: value-increase, value-decrease
• User interface state:
  • ui-clickable / ui-clicked
  • ui-enabled / ui-disabled
  • ui-editable / ui-readonly
  • ui-selected / ui-unselected

Spamming mitigations

The general nature of a notification API means that authors could use it for scenarios that are already handled by screen readers (such as for focus-change actions) resulting in confusing double-announcements (in the worst case) or extra unwanted verbosity (in the best case).

Note: screen readers will tune their behavior for the best customer experiences. Screen readers already add custom logic for handling app-and-site-specific scenarios and are keen to extend that value to websites that make use of ariaNotify. For this reason, known & popular sites that abuse ariaNotify can be mitigated at the screen reader level without requiring particular mitigations in browsers. This does not preclude mitigation strategies that UAs may to include.

Finally, malicious attackers can use the API as a Denial-of-Service against AT users.

Opportunities exist to mitigate against these possibilities:

• Make use of User Activation primitives to limit usage of this API to only actions taken by the user.

Future considerations

1. ariaNotify can be extended in the future to handle more functionality as needs arise. Two possible examples are provided below. There may be a need for a web author to supply a Braille specific string separate from the speech string. For example, an author could supply “3 stars” as the speech string to indicate a retail item’s rating. However, to better map within a Braille display, the author could supply “***” as a Braille alternative string.

The API could easily be extended by adding another optional property for Braille strings. For example:

    document.ariaNotify( "3 stars”, {“braille”:”***”} );

2. There may also be a use case where an author would want to allow the speech string to be marked up to guarantee a specific pronunciation. This can be useful in cases where the speech engine may not produce the best experience for the user.

For example, maybe you would like “911” pronounce as “9 1 1” in some cases. Or in a spreadsheet, you may want to hear “a 1” spoken with a long “a” sound instead of a short “a” sound (i.e. “ay 1” as opposed to “uh 1”).

The API could easily be extended by adding another property for strings marked up with, say, SSML:

    document.ariaNotify( "911", {"SSML":"<say-as interpret-as=\x22\"""digits\x22""">911" );

FAQ

Is this API going to lead to privacy concerns for AT users? No. This API has been designed to be “write-only,” meaning that its use should have no other apparent observable side-effects that could be used for fingerprinting.

See Security and Privacy section for additional details.

Are Element-level notifications really necessary? Adding ariaNotify to Elements was driven by several goals:

• Resolve the question of how language input should be provided. To keep the API simple, we are able to leverage the lang attribute that is used to override the document language for specific subtrees. ariaNotify can use the nearest ancestor element’s lang attribute as a language hint (or the document’s default language).
• Screen readers can filter/prioritize notifications based on the element associated with the notification queue. E.g., the element’s current visibility in the User Agent, the element’s proximity to the focused element. (Same potential options available with ARIA live regions today.)

Can this API allow for output verbosity preferences? Screen reader users can customize the verbosity of the information (and context) that is read to them via settings. Screen reader vendors can also adapt the screen reader on a per site or per app basis for the best experience of their users. ariaNotify offers notificationID as a mechanism to allow screen reader vendors or users to customize not only the general use of ariaNotify on websites, but also individual notifications by notificationID (or specific notification string instances in the limit).

Tooling help It’s very difficult today to test that ARIA live regions are working and how they are working. Tooling, such as the work proposed here, should be available for content authors to validate the behavior of both ARIA live regions and ariaNotify.

Alternate Solutions

The design of this API is loosely inspired by the UIA Notification API).

Previous discussions for a Notifications API in the AOM and ARIA groups:

• Issue 3 - Use Case: Accessibility Notifications
• Issue 84 - Live region properties vs announcement notification
• Issue 832 - Do we need a notifications API in ARIA

Privacy & Security Considerations

1. Timing. The use of the API provides no return value, but parameters must still be processed. Implementations should take care to avoid optimizing-out the synchronous aspects of processing this API, as predictable timing differences from when the API is “working” (a screen reader is connected) vs. “not working” (no screen reader connected) could still be used to infer the presence of a user with an active screen reader.
2. Readback. Any readback of configuration settings for a screen reader via an API have the potential of exposing a connected (vs. not connected) screen reader, and as such is an easy target for fingerprinting screen reader users, an undesirable outcome. Similarly, confirmation of notifications (such as via a fulfilled promise) have similar traits and are avoided in this proposal.
3. Authoritative-sounding notifications. Announcements could be crafted to deceive the user into thinking they are navigating trusted UI in the browser by arbitrarily reading out control areas/names that match a particular target browser’s trusted UI.
   • Mitigations should be applied to suppress notifications when focus moves outside of the web content.
   • Additional mitigations to block certain trusted phrases related to the browser’s trusted UI could be considered.
   • Implementations may choose to audibly differentiate notification phrases coming from ariaNotify in order to make it clear that they are content author controlled.
4. Secure Context. Does it make sense to offer this feature only to Secure Contexts? Should usage of this API be automatically granted to 3rd party browsing contexts? Currently thinking “no” in order to have maximum possibility of reach within the accessible community on all websites that should be made accessible, whether secure context-enabled or not.
5. Data Limits (See Security and Privacy Questionnaire #2.7) Should there be a practical limit on the amount of text that can be sent in one parameter to the API? Just like multiple-call DoS attacks, one call with an enormous amount of text could tie up an AT or cause a hang as data is marshalled across boundaries.