Guideline 2.2 Level 3 Success Criteria 2

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