Re: timeouts

Hi Lisa,

> some people might warn the user on every page that a timer starts, and
not at the beginning of the process.


Could we not address this in the Understanding document?
​ For all of our new Success Criteria in WCAG 2.1, it goes without saying
that there is an educational component to all of them​, and so I'd ensure
that "user-story" examples associated to the understanding document here
will be critical.

(Also, *I've never seen a page-by-page timeout mechanism*; it is
usually *associated
to an authenticated state* and general inactivity at the site, irrespective
of which 'page' you may be on... as I've tried to explain numerous time,
the timeout is activated by the authenticated host server *and not
individual pages*: this isn't done via client-side scripting, so this is a
pure-play editorial requirement in WCAG 2.1.)


> Do we still see value in pushing for this SC if we can only get in the
wording above
​
(JF: below)​
​
?

​

​
*Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned before an
activity timer is set about the estimated length of inactivity that
generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20
hours of user inactivity.*​



Seems to me that something is better than nothing. As an old boss of mine
used to say, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
​.

I think this current wording gets us to close enough for most use-cases,
recognizing that there will always be edge-cases and corner-cases that may
fall outside of the current language. This SC could be met simply by adding
timeout information at login time (which, if I was the developer, would be
what I'd likely do, almost like a Terms of Service notice):

N​ame:_______________​

​Password: ____________

[ ] I understand that I will be logged out of this site after 15 minutes of
inactivity.

           [ SUBMIT ]​


JF

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:45 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi Folks
>
> We may only be able to get the following wording on time outs in WCAG:
> * Where data can be lost due to user inactivity, users are warned before
> an activity timer is set about the estimated length of inactivity that
> generates the data loss, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of 20
> hours of user inactivity.*
>
>
> With the wording above, some people might warn the user on every page that
> a timer starts, and not at the beginning of the process. SO i wont be able
> to know, at the start of a process, that this process times out to fast for
> me to complete the task and just gives me more to read.
>
> Do we still see value in pushing for this SC if we can only get in the
> wording above?
>
> (note the original wording is here: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#timeouts
> comment summary is here: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Resolving_
> Timeouts/?)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn, Twitter
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion