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

Framework for Web Accessibility Policies (FWAP) 0.1

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:43:26 -0500
Message-Id: <a0510034cb820611436d6@[]>
To: w3c-wai-gl@W3.org
>2 - RE: time limit. You asked a question. My response is that I dont 
>think that we should be forbidding time limits or making them 
>infinite. We do have to make sure they are sufficient to allow 
>people to respond, -- yet handle the real needs of some site 
>activities. There is a triplet of rules/options that I think should 
>be used. I will post them separately for comment.

This requirement is very badly worded in every version I've seen. Why 
can't we just say:

If the user must take an action within a specified time, authors must 
do one of the following:

	a. let the user disable that feature entirely
	b. let the user set the specified time to infinity or an 
extremely large figure
	c. let the user set the specified time to any arbitrary figure

Allow the user to restart the timing process as many occasions as is 
necessary for the user.

When issuing a warning that a response period is about to expire, 
timing of the response period must stop until the user can react to 
the warning.

This approach (which we can and will tweak):

* Lets people opt out of timed responses.
* Lets authors whose systems cannot accommodate such an opt-out but 
*can* accommodate a high time value use that instead.
* Lets people give themselves as much time as they need while still 
keeping a lid on things. (This might come up in E-learning testing; a 
timed response may be required, but accommodation may be made for 
students who need more time.)

I'm very firm about stopping the clock when warning that time is 
about to run out. By definition, if the basic or underlying or 
original timed process is hard for a person to keep up with, a 
quickie dialogue box that says "Hit this special button within five 
seconds or you lose your shopping cart!" ain't gonna cut it.

>They dont allow type-to-jump feature which is important for 
>non-visual, low vision and physical access.

That's why God gave us accesskey and tabindex.

>I'm not sure what I think. I'm sure it has helped us move forward 
>and advanced our thinking. Not sure if this is the approach we 
>should go with.

It's the best one so far. I seem to recall Al Gilman's shaking us up 
a couple of months ago. This is the first *concrete proposal* we have 
in hand.

>PS Please watch the tone.

Oh, please. You can't wash the stripes off a zebra.
   Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org | <http://joeclark.org/access/>
   Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques ||
       "I do not pretend to understand the mind of Joe Clark"
       -- Larry Goldberg
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 14:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC