W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > October 2012

Re: For longer time-outs, would not a cntrol that removes automatic refresh meet the SC?

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:43:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWZLsZFVt01j=s=3S5bOsqGvvrGFkftpwhubnrb_53WqEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:20 AM, <noreply@w3.org> wrote:

> Name: Detlev Fischer
> Email: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> Affiliation: 3needs
> Document: TD
> Item Number: F41
> Part of Item: Applicability
> Comment Type: general comment
> Summary of Issue: For longer time-outs, would not a cntrol that removes
> automatic refresh meet the SC?
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> The Failure test just looks for meta http-equiv with value "refresh"  and
> content  > 0. I can see a scenario where the value of content is high (say,
> 1200 = 20 minutes) and a control is available to extend or turn off
> auto-refresh (e.g., via DOM scripting of the meta http-eqiv content
> attribute). In that case, it seems to me that SC 2.2.1 would be met. Would
> F41 nit need to be updated to reflect that option, also in the test
> procedure?
> Proposed Change:
> Not sure - if my argument holds, the test would need to check whether a
> page actually get refreshed (either by inspecting the content value or, if
> it is done server-side, by waiting (how long a wait is sensible I am not
> sure, 20 mins?), and, if the page is found to refresh, look out for a
> control to extend or turn off the time limit. If a refresh takes place and
> there is a working control giving uders enough time to locate it, the
> Failure would not apply.
> ================================
Response from the Working Group
RE control to stop refresh:  We agree that if a control exists to stop it
-- the page would not fail.

RE Very long refresh time:  This is a hard one to judge.  What is a very
long time? If the average user takes 20 minutes to complete it -- then 20
is not a long time.   But more to the point, the SC does not say "or a very
long time".  It does say 20 HOURS. But not 20 min or 'a long time'.


a)   We are changing  "If the time interval is too short, "  in the
introduction to  "If the time interval is too short, and there is no way to
turn auto-refresh off"

b) We are making the following changes  to the test procedure
        3) check to see if there is a mechanism to turn off the refresh.
Expected Result
        -  If step 2 is true and step 3 is false then this failure
condition applies and content fails these Success Criteria.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 22:44:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:57 UTC