Re: new wording for Undo

> The problem is that we lose a large number of use cases, such as picking
up the tablet and everything is now gone. It wasn't a step in the process ,
it was a mistake.
Now I want to go back.

​I understand that presenting UNDO in the context of steps is a narrowing
of the scope, and that there would be use cases lost. The proposal was
intended to catch the bulk of the issues and to improve testability and
implementability.​

It's always a balance. It's sometimes hard to know where that balance needs
to be struck. Its tight and clear SC now. Previously it was quite open and
harder to interpret, hard to test and implement without steps, but I'm open
to flying it without steps, and keeping steps as a way to address comments
and objections when they arise.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:30 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> * > Does this mean “any” or “at least one”? *
>
> I think my wording requires that use return to any previous step, which
> I've made explicit below ... But I think we'll need to either put that out
> for public comment or discuss with developers the implementation issues
> involved in going back more than one step, and balance that against the
> benefits.
>
> When an action is one of a sequence of steps that need to be completed in
> order to accomplish an activity, users can return to any previous step to
> correct their data entry, without loss of data they entered, except when:
>
> •       it would undermine privacy or security;
> •       the user has confirmed an action;
> •       doing so prevents an essential function of the content;
> •       the data is no longer controlled by the site;
> •       the user has not interacted with the site for 24 hours.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:13 AM
>> *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> *Cc:* W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: new wording for Undo
>>
>>
>>
>> That's good, I'd just suggest keeping the object consistent, so say
>> "previous step" rather than previous context.
>>
>> *[Jason] Applying this to David’s proposal, the reference would be to “a
>> previous step”. Does this mean “any” or “at least one”? That is, does the
>> option of moving back only one step satisfy the SC, or must the user be
>> able to move back any number of previously completed steps before making a
>> correction? This seems ambiguous in David’s proposal, which is otherwise a
>> considerable improvement over previous formulations.*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
>