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

RE: Updating 2.4, rewritten

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:00:53 -0400 (EDT)
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Adam Victor Reed'" <areed2@calstatela.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105302154560.6049-100000@tux.w3.org>
There is a desire on the part of people running servers not have those
servers tied up too long waiting for people who have decided to abandon their
shopping. It's a bit like a supermarket - if people constantly filled
trolleys and left them in the aisle, the supermarket would have to spend real
money to clear them out of the way. Since it is much easier in the
e-commerce world to "fill the trolley", and easier to just go to another site
than to log out (and also because often in the real e-commerce world you
don't get the information to decide on a purchase unless you pretend you are
going to make one), this is a real issue.

Dell apparently wrote recently about how they had manipulated inventory of an
Intel processor to corner a market in the UK, so they may be more concerned
than most people about it happening, but in general it is unlikely that this
is a major worry (albeit still possible). Those kind of scenarios are outside
the level of requirements for accessibility - it is imoprtant that the
accessibility community are aware of the issue in security, and vital that
the security (and Intellectual Property) communities are aware that some
people have a real need for a different policy being available. But those are
implementation details, and like deciding what is a good policy for a
particular organisation or country, generally outside our scope.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 30 May 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  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


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 22:00:55 UTC

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