W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: NEW: Issue #1552 [2.2 L1: extend time limit / invalidate activity]

From: Christophe Strobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:23:44 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20050815141951.031ba218@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

At 06:52 12/08/2005, you wrote:

>[(...) The following NEW issue was added to Bugzilla (...).]
>
>   concern about "invalidating the activity"
>     -> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1552

I was considering a proposal to address issue 1459
(http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1459) which
was also based on a comment by the same person as for issue 1552:
"
I believe that the US ADA allows extensions even for time-based
testing as a disability accommodation, so I'd like to see this comment be
more forgiving."


These are comments from the survey on GL 2.2:
'Extended time-limits for tests, examinations, etc., is accepted as a 
reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities (e.g., dyslexia) 
under the US Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended. This Act applies to 
entities, including public schools as well as universities, that receive 
financial support from the US federal government. As I read the proposed 
SC, it would permit the kind of extended time-limits required by Section 
504. Even if a time limit is "an essential" part of an activity such as an 
examination, the ability to extend it to comply with applicable law is also 
"an essential" part of the activity. (I don't believe Section 504 requires 
indefinite extensions for examinations; typical are additional 50% and 
sometimes 100%.)' [From first survey.]

'As I read the proposed SC, it would permit the kind of extended 
time-limits required by Section 504. Even if a time limit is "an essential" 
part of an activity such as an examination, the ability to extend it to 
comply with applicable law is also "an essential" part of the activity.' [I 
can no longer find the exact source for this.]

Someone else proposed a rewording: 'without violating the purpose of the 
activity' instead of 'without invalidating the activity'. [First survey.]

So the 5th bullet in 2.2 L1 SC1 could be reworded as follows:

<proposal>
the time-out is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example, 
competitive gaming or time-based testing) and
time limits and disability accommodations can not be extended further 
without violating the purpose of the activity.
</proposal>

<current>
the time-out is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example, 
competitive gaming or time-based testing) and time limits can not be 
extended further without invalidating the activity.
<current>

This is not an "official" proposal; I'll come back to this when we start 
the next round of issue summaries and proposals.

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 12:24:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT