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

RE: Proposal: 2.4 rewording

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:58:27 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003c01c0f23b$896eb4e0$b27ba8c0@750>
Ann's suggestion sounds good to me.   Since the OR is there, it is no more
restrictive, but it is much more suggestive of giving the user active
control.   The "either" needs to move to the front of the sentence for
grammatical reasons but I concur with this suggestion.

-- ------------------------------
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 Anne Pemberton
Sent:	Sunday, June 10, 2001 4:53 PM
To:	Matt May; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject:	Re: Proposal: 2.4 rewording

Not sure I like leaving out control ... what is not necessary to one person
is undoubtedly necessary or atleast desirable to another ... why not:

Give the user either control over timing of content, or provide _as much
time as possible_ to read or interact with content.


At 12:07 PM 6/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I took an action item to reword 2.4 to deal with the limitations of the
>current wording with respect to how much time to allocate, when it is
>appropriate to allow timeouts to occur, etc.
>We were finding trouble setting a number to determine the limitation in
>seconds of an interaction event. I think it's tilting at windmills to try
>arrive at a fixed figure for interaction given the domain in which we're
>working, so I tried to produce something that overcomes this problem.
>Here's what I came up with:
>2.4 (original) Give users control over how long they can spend reading or
>interacting with content.
>2.4. Give users _as much time as possible_ to read or interact with
>Techniques can include (and these are just conceptual samples, not
>comprehensive proposed wording):
>- Avoid setting any timeout or interval that doesn't technically need to be
>- Where timeouts are technically required and cannot be overridden, allow
>much time as is technically allowable.
>- Avoid fixed-speed scrolling. Offer control over objects that scroll or
>flash messages in sequence (title credits, end credit scrolls, etc.).
>"As much as possible" in this context is not necessarily as lax as it would
>appear. For a vast majority of the content out there, "as much as possible"
>is forever. There is no need for most web pages to refresh, reload, scroll,
>flash, or time out. And if a site is made to prove that it adhered to the
>guidelines, it is provable via code review or spec documents that the site
>did or did not comply.
>On a tangent: for the "meta refresh" problem, I think that a technique
>to be placed in 2.4 to allow meta refreshes in HTML for site redirection
>("this site has moved to..."). It is unfortunately necessary to do these
>redirects on many sites, as the designers do not control the operation of
>the server.
>I think the refresh time should be 0, and the page content should say only
>that the site has been moved and the updated URL. Ideally, there would be
>need for that content, but if the redirect fails, users will be stuck on a
>blank page. As long as the only content is that pointer, and the page
>provides no content on its own, I think this needs to be an allowable hack.
Anne Pemberton

Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 02:00:37 UTC

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