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

RE: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts

From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:41:46 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
CC: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR07MB34577E6ED7B8B3B614E3BCADABEC0@BN6PR07MB3457.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:29 AM

I think the SC requiring advance warning for time limits which states the amount of time available (if this time limit is known by the author) is a viable SC (or viable addition to 2.2.1)

[Jason] It’s viable, but I’m not enthusiastic about it, as it doesn’t solve the user’s problem. Could we better confine the use of options 2 and 3 in SC 2.2.1?
That is, can we state the circumstances in which it’s acceptable to use option 2 or 3? At the moment, it’s entirely at the author’s discretion, whereas from the user’s point of view, either the first option (the time limit can be removed) or the last option (it’s more than 20 hours in duration) is far preferable. The exceptions are outside the content author’s control and so would remain in any case.

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:42:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 08:04:10 UTC