RE: timeouts

I am sorry I missed the change where it says  'estimated' length of inactivity - that would sow a seed of doubt in my mind - what is an estimated length of inactivity?

Best wishes
E.A.

Mrs E.A. Draffan
WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103
http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk<https://www.outlook.soton.ac.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=69b1RzNTDwem3wbm4pLRmuYfTLt16YjcghtEpZBsF5Sebx78I2DUCA..&URL=http%3a%2f%2faccess.ecs.soton.ac.uk%2f>
UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/<https://www.outlook.soton.ac.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=WUwOCw_4FszLSzcUbkoFdDkad8-Q_GrRfPYUJ_ol5l2ebx78I2DUCA..&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.aaate.net%2f>

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: 27 November 2017 17:46
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Cc: Bradley Montgomery <rbradley@mitre.org>
Subject: timeouts

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