W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Minimize user errors

From: Thad C <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:05:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOh2y+-p5BA=ct=vf1=jsad3WveC1M=-7zjNNUOmS+sjdwuW8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "lisa. seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Good Morning,

Thanks for the suggestion. I think the intention of the first wording,
which was part of the original reword document it to to say:

   - If an automatic* correction *is known to be reliable and possible, the
   user agent, API etc should go ahead and make the *correction*.
   - If the correction is *not* know to be reliable and possible then
*suggestions
   *are provided (which the user can choose from)

Does that make sense?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:36 AM, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> I am a bit confused by the addition now…
>
>
>
> @@*3.3.3 Minimize user errors*: Identify common input errors
> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/minimize-errors.html#dt-common-input-error>.
> When an input error <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#input-errordef> is
> detected an automatic correction is made where it is *known to be
> reliable and possible*. Otherwise, if suggestions for correction are
> known, then the suggestions are provided to the user, unless it would
> jeopardize the security or purpose of the content.@@
>
>
>
> Does this mean that when you say "Otherwise, if suggestions for correction
> are known, then the suggestions are provided to the user…"  someone has to
> manually supply the correction, as that is what it now sounds like?
>
>
>
> Would it be possible to just say:
>
>
>
> @@*3.3.3 Minimize user errors*: Identify common input errors
> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/minimize-errors.html#dt-common-input-error>.
> When an input error <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#input-errordef> is
> detected an automatic correction is made where it is *known to be
> reliable and possible*, then the suggestions are provided to the user,
> unless it would jeopardize the security or purpose of the content.@@
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> E.A.
>
>
>
> Mrs E.A. Draffan
>
> WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
>
> Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103
>
> http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk
>
> UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/
>
> http://www.emptech.info
>
>
>
> *From:* Thad C [mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 25 September 2016 19:37
> *To:* lisa. seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> *Cc:* public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Minimize user errors
>
>
>
> The recommended change and the inclusion of the definition makes sense to
> me.
>
> +1
>
> Thad
>
> On Sep 25, 2016 11:31 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks
>
>
>
> I made a small change to https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/
> minimize-errors..html
> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/minimize-errors.html>
>
>
>
> Our addition now reads:
>
>
>
> When an input error is detected an automatic correction is made where it
> is known to be reliable and possible.
>
>
>
> and I added the definition for
>
> known to be reliable and possible as : Identified in the WCAG techniques
> as possible to reliably correct
>
>
>
> Does this seem Ok to the group?
>
>
>
> If yes can we approve this Sc?
>
>
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il..linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 13:08:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 September 2016 13:08:47 UTC