W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Can you confirm if you want the sensitive data exception for timeouts

From: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 10:18:30 -0800
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f15a96f4-db64-559a-b599-6f4a6680c922@access-research.org>
Gregg, that is correct: I was suggesting we not have any exception for sensitive data, but make that explicit in the supporting documents.

(Note, however, that my other two recommendations for wording changes still stand: that we harmonize the "submitted" wording in first and last clauses, and that the first address " length of time or inactivity".)

     Greg

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Can you confirm if you want the sensitive data exception for timeouts
From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: 5/7/2017 7:52 PM
> Just for clarity…
>
> If you need an exception — it MUST be in the SC.
>
> The UNDERSTANDING document can only explain what the SC says and why it says it.  You cannot add an exception in the understanding doc — or say that you don’t intent it to apply to some cases.      If it isnt an exception then it passes or fails.  There are no other options
>
>
> I THINK Greg is suggesting that there SHOULD be no exception.  And that is fine.   But then if A or B cannot be done for a site as outlined by Greg — then it will fail.
>
>
> /g/
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 5, 2017, at 2:25 AM, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org <mailto:gcl-0039@access-research.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I brought up the case because I felt we should make an explicit decision about it, but my preference is to not include an exception in the SC, and instead to add wording to the Understanding document explaining the rationale as you stated it: if any data cannot be saved, whether to security or other reasons, they need to either warn about the timeout ahead of time or make the timeout period extremely long.
>>
>> Speaking of which, the Understanding document should also explain why we don't offer the alternative approach of prompting the user at the end of the timeout period with an option to extend.
>>
>>     Greg
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Can you confirm if you want the sensitive data exception for timeouts
>> From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
>> To: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> Date: 5/4/2017 7:57 PM
>>> Hi Folks
>>>
>>> on yesterdays call people asked to we'll add the sensitive data exception so that we do not  force people to keep sensitive data
>>>
>>> However we don't force them to keep the data, it's just that if they don't they need to provide a warning about any timeout period.
>>>
>>> People need to know how long they have to fill out the form. I do not think that goes away just becuse the data is sensitive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the Que was closed and I could not comment, so I am not sure how to proceed here
>>>
>>> Do we want  the sensitive data exception?
>>>
>>> Also can anyone suggest wording for sensitive data that will not create a huge loophole for everything?
>>>
>>> what I have so far is :
>>> sensitive information - information that can put users at risk
>>>
>>>
>>> issue on github is : https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/14
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Lisa Seeman
>>>
>>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 17:18:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 May 2017 17:18:42 UTC