Re: timeouts

The clearest way to conform will be to have a message each time a timer starts and I think that has more disadvantages then advantages for the user. iE it is not the "best being the enimy of the good" rather that this SC wording drops below the mark of providing a clear benefit for the user and in some cases may even be a disadvatage.

But that is just my opinion. If more COGA experts disagree and prefer this to be in then have nothing  then of course we should go for it. 
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:13:53 +0200 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

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