Change in Content: SC 3.2.6 - purpose for this SC

[spanchang]

Here is a comprehensive analysis of why this SC is superfluous:
http://www.mindoversight.com/demo/sc3-2-7.htm
Specifically all reasons need a review and an answer.
If you conclude a new SC is indeed needed, can you define the current gap in WCAG 2.0, specifically outline those situations, and write an SC to cover it?

Here are some responses I got including from this list members:
Response #1:

1. Sailesh, you asked: "Why not then flag this content that is presented to function like an eye catcher with an informational content with a suitable role?", and indeed you are correct.
   the scenario you outlined is explicitly covered, without going through the entire explanation and logic argument you presented".
2. It's not that I disagree with your logic, ...
   Would it help the SC if there was a note that outlined your logic argument that suggests this need is already covered, but that understanding that need is complicated by the fact that you need to have a deeper, holistic understanding of WCAG 2.0, that not many mainstream developers possess?

Response #2:
I totally agree with your article. I think this new success criterion is superfluous and confusing.
working so closely with mainstream developers and testers it is becoming increasingly clear to me that what we need is clearer documentation and a simpler specification, not more success criteria.

Response #3:
WCAG clearly covers some situations but not others -- most of us would still flag these situations on the current WCAG although strictly speaking some of them don't fit. 

Response #4:
I still support some addition to the normative, but would like it to be as narrow as possible - i.e. I would like it to exclude anything that can possibly be interpreted within the current normative document.

[patrickhlauke]

1. WCAG 2.0 currently only covers changes of context (which include changes of content that significantly alter the meaning / context of the page) on focus and when changing a setting. As you note, it does not cover changes of context/content as a result of an activation ("Clicking on links or tabs in a tab control is activating the control..."). I would hazard a guess that this was done not because the WG felt changes of content as a result of activation weren't a problem, but because otherwise they'd have had to split changes of context in terms of focus and changes of context in terms of content into separate SCs, or write more lengthy text that explains that activation can change focus but certain content changes that change context are still covered by that SC. But as it stands now, changes of content (even ones that are severe enough to change the context) as a result of an activation are simply not covered by WCAG 2.0, as that only covers them based on focus and on input. Further, there's also nothing directly related to changes of content that happen arbitrarily, not tied to a user interaction at all.

2. so what current SC would you use to flag failure to identify some content added to the page that is (in the opinion of the visual designer) clear enough to sighted users as a change that it doesn't warrant an alert or similar? I've often cheated and called out these sorts of things under 4.1.2 for lack of a notification of change, but strictly that only relates to notifications of change of an interactive control.

3. doesn't seem to address the actual problem that users are not notified appropriately of changes of content/context, and if these happened as a result of activation (rather than focus or input) or even completely separate from any user action these are not covered by current WCAG 2.0

[spanchang]

Also see "How auto-updating content is fully addressed by WCAG 2.0" for the second part of the proposed 'change in content' SC that refers to continual updates:
http://www.mindoversight.com/?p=171
Thanks

[awkawk]

Thank you for your comment. Your comment indicates that you do not feel that this SC is needed. The Working Group does not agree. We have updated and hopefully clarified the SC. Please re-review it when the new working draft is available this week.