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

Re: Guideline 2.2 Issue Summary

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:35:29 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920510110335y2de2669au@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

On 11/10/05, Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> I am perfectly aware of the burden to maintain all session variables.

Of course, and I apologise if I suggested otherwise.

> That is exactly why I (tentatively) suggested a technique. Maybe the
> technique itself was not completely clear: the intention of the
> autosubmit (which seems questionable in other situations, for example
> because it is a change of context not requested by the user) was
> to enable the server to store the user's data in a persistence mechanism
> and close the session, and to retrieve these data again when the user
> logs in again. This way it looks to the user as if he/she is continuing
> the same session, although technically it is a new session.

My concern with this technique is the same as yours; it would violate
Guideline 3.2 L3 SC2.

> If this is not a good technique, we need something else for L3 SC3.
> Any ideas?

Only the idea I suggested yesterday.

offer registration and keep the transaction in a database, which would
allow them a reasonable amount of time (however much the administrator
could afford for a transaction table) to complete the form.

> In Brussels, we accepted
> "Content does not blink for more than 3 seconds,
> or a method is available to stop any blinking content in the delivery unit"
> as a response to issue 1044
> [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1044]
> ("Why not allow total turn-off of blink?"). No one found it too restrictive.
> Do you think this is too restrictive at Level 2?

I personally wouldn't find it restrictive, as I find content that
blinks distracting. I was putting a case forward where there isn't
excessive blinking content, and disabling it all could be considered
restrictive. If everyone agrees that isn't restrictive, I would be
happy with that outcome.

> If we don't require that blinking can be turned off in the whole delivery
> unit with one action, users will have to do it for every instance
> separately. If there are 10 blinking items and you have to stop them one
> by one, that is very irritating.

Agreed. I'll leave the guide document as it is for the moment (still
to be added to the wiki), and we can discuss this on our call this
evening. It would be good to get other views (if any) on this before
our call.

Best regards,


Supplement your vitamins
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 10:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:56 UTC