- From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:07:52 -0400
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 22:08:29 UTC
I think that is very doable I hope we can do more as well — since telling me I only have 5 min to do something that takes 10 for me to do saves some frustration from lost data — but doesnt allow me to finish the page. But I guess the current SC covers some of that =- by only having it when it is necessary so — Yes what you propose below looks good to me - and testable and all the rest as far as I can see. > Where data can be lost due to timeouts that are less than 24 hours, users are warned at the start of a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout. g Gregg C Vanderheiden greggvan@umd.edu > On May 2, 2017, at 5:15 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > > Hi Folks > We have new wording proposed for issue 14 - timeouts . It is as follows: > > Where data can be lost due to timeouts that are less than 24 hours, users are warned at the start of a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout. > > > Is this something we can live with? I think we can get this though and it does help. > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 22:08:29 UTC