W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Timeouts - issue 14

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:07:52 -0400
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D0397CB-6B68-4C3B-B527-9AFC6FF84EE1@umd.edu>
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:58 UTC