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

Re: Revising 2.4

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:13:00 -0700
Message-ID: <01f701c0f2cc$1f1fc5c0$6501a8c0@vaio>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I consider user control to be a technique. It's just a way to remove a time
limit. I think the wording here is a little too verbose (more so than the
rest of the checkpoints, anyway).


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: Revising 2.4

> If we incorporating Anne's suggestion this would become:
> 2.4  If at all possible, allow the user to control or do not limit the
> that a user may need to
> understand or interact with your content.
> * When a time limit cannot be avoided, move as much content
>   and interaction as possible out of the time-limited segment.
> * Provide disabled users with a means to bypass or extend
>   any remaining time limit.
> * Use delayed refresh or 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   bring superceded content up to date.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,
>   auto-scrolling etc) and for control of the rate at
>   which motion occurs.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 19:13:35 UTC

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