Confusion regarding definition of "status message"

[patrickhlauke]

The discussion at #4672 is making my think that the definition for status message https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-status-messages is indeed a bit flawed.

If the idea is that definitions can be replaced with their longer explanation, then the wording for https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#status-messages does become (adapting it to the plural form used in the SC)

"In content implemented using markup languages, changes in content that are not changes of context, and that provides information to the user on the success or results of an action, on the waiting state of an application, on the progress of a process, or on the existence of errors can be programmatically determined through role or properties such that they can be presented to the user by assistive technologies without receiving focus."

This does somehow miss out the idea that status messages are first and foremost that ... messages, explicit notifications. And it makes it sound like the SC applies to any change of content that isn't a change of context, which we explicitly didn't want to have - that's why this was scoped to "status messages" in the first place.

Suggest we either modify the wording of the definition to limit its scope back down, or - if that's less painful - add a note (ideally in the definition, but at a stretch in the understanding doc) that spells it out... that this is strictly about explicit status messages.

[DaleenRabe]

I agree with @patrickhlauke idea, the ambiguity is the source of the confusion from the previous discussion.

The current definition is a little confusing because it describes the effect (a change in content that informs the user) rather than the thing we are meant to be marking up (an explicit message).

To prevent this confusion for developers and auditors, I believe his suggestion to modify the definition itself is the best path forward. A note would help, but fixing the definition at its source would be a more robust and permanent solution.

[mbgower]

Getting back to our discussion last week, we are only putting things into the TF discussion when there is something drafted.
If someone wants to work on a revision to the definition and get it into draft -- or compose a draft WG 'response only' -- it will come up through that process.

Personally, I neither think there's a big problem here, nor do I think you are easily going to come up with something to 'fix' it normatively.