- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:26:56 -0400
- To: <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>
I reviewed Guideline 2.2, Level 3, Success Criterion 2: "Non-emergency interruptions, such as the availability of updated content, can be postponed or suppressed by the user." I believe the intent of this guideline is to prevent providers from changing content unless it is allowed by users. I have a concern over the use of the words "emergency interruptions". I don't think there are any emergency interruptions that are distributed over the web. An emergency interruption is something that would endanger life or property, like a fire alarm, burglar alarm or notice of impending earthquake. It seems unreasonable that this sort of interruption would be displayed in your web browser. I don't think it would work to allow content providers to judge and label their content as "emergency". Unscrupulous merchants would use this to give their advertisments priority - EMERGENCY buy Viagra now. An emergency to some is an annoyance to others. Without emergency interruptions the SC would mean that *all* interruptions can be postponed or suppressed by the user. The word "interruption" also requires definition. I think the intent is that any change in content or context that is not anticipated is an interruption. If you were at a news site and the site updated the "breaking news" portion of the page that would not be an interruption. If you were reading an on-line novel and the site updated with "breaking news" that would be an interruption. If the on-line novel site also displayed "breaking news" as part of the regular functioning of the site then it would not be an interruption. Interruption depends on the context of the site and it would be difficult to judge what is an interruption. I propose that the wording of the SC be changed to "All changes of content can be postponed or suppressed by the user". Cheers, Chris
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 20:28:52 UTC