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

Re: Revising 2.4 - last post before f2f

From: Adam Victor Reed <areed2@calstatela.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:24:59 -0700
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010613002459.A18642@uranus.calstatela.edu>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:56:23PM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> 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 time
> 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 	  bring superceded content up to date.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.

This really IS getting verbose. How about:

2.4  If at all possible, allow time for understanding and interaction.
	* Move as much content and interaction as possible out of
	  time-limited segments.
	* Provide disabled users with a means to bypass or extend
	  time limits.
	* Use delayed refresh or redirection only when necessary to
	  bring content up to date.
	* Cooperate with user agent mechanisms for preventing motion
	  (flicker, blinking, flashing, auto-scrolling etc) and for
	  control of the rate at which motion occurs.

(my last post until f2f in Amsterdam)

-- 
				Adam Reed
				areed2@calstatela.edu
				 
Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 03:25:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:10 GMT