W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Updating 2.4, rewritten

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:54:25 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Adam Victor Reed'" <areed2@calstatela.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I tend to agree with this, and do not think the proposal should slide
through without further examination. I don't think this has been discussed
from the viewpoint of those who see it as necessary (Why is Dell doing it?
They've said it's to manage inventory ... is that unreasonable? How much
time is enough? When does a site become vulnerable to mischief-makers who
can manipulate inventory by playing with shopping carts? Is there a better
way for Dell to accomplish their goal?)


At 05:33 PM 5/27/01 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>I'm not sure we should take this approach (a do not use timeouts).   There
>are reasons for doing this (security is one) and we shouldn't prohibit.  I
>think we should adopt the approach used by UA and most other places... that
>of giving a warning and allowing extra time.     There is a complication
>with HTTP....   But maybe something could be written into a page....
>Thoughts anyone?
>-- ------------------------------
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Human Factors
>Depts of Ind. and Biomed. Engr. - U of Wis.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
>FAX 608/262-8848
>For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
> -----Original Message-----
>From: 	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
>Behalf Of Adam Victor Reed
>Sent:	Saturday, May 26, 2001 3:20 PM
>To:	w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject:	Updating 2.4, rewritten
>The page which contains the timeout that prompted me to attempt a
>revision of Guideline 2.4 is now
>The text announcing the time-out is:
>	"Due to the high demand and limited quantity of our available
>	products, your selection(s) will be removed from your cart
>	after 15 minutes of inactivity."
>I have re-written my proposed update of Guideline 2.4 to reflect
>discussion on the list.
>2.4 Do not limit the time that a user may need to understand or
>interact with your content.
>	* Avoid demands that the user respond within a preset period.
>	* Use automatic refresh and delayed redirection only when
>	  necessary to bring superceded content up to date.
>	* Content must cooperate with user agent mechanisms for
>	  preventing motion (including flicker, blinking, flashing,
>	  self-scrolling etc) and for control of the rate at which
>	  it occurs. Note that flicker effects can cause seizures in
>	  people with photoepilepsy.
>				Adam Reed
>				areed2@calstatela.edu
>Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.
Anne Pemberton

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 21:00:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC