Re: Proposal: 2.4 rewording

Not sure I like leaving out control ... what is not necessary to one person
is undoubtedly necessary or atleast desirable to another ... why not:

Give the user either control over timing of content, or provide _as much
time as possible_ to read or interact with content. 


At 12:07 PM 6/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I took an action item to reword 2.4 to deal with the limitations of the
>current wording with respect to how much time to allocate, when it is
>appropriate to allow timeouts to occur, etc.
>We were finding trouble setting a number to determine the limitation in
>seconds of an interaction event. I think it's tilting at windmills to try to
>arrive at a fixed figure for interaction given the domain in which we're
>working, so I tried to produce something that overcomes this problem.
>Here's what I came up with:
>2.4 (original) Give users control over how long they can spend reading or
>interacting with content.
>2.4. Give users _as much time as possible_ to read or interact with content.
>Techniques can include (and these are just conceptual samples, not
>comprehensive proposed wording):
>- Avoid setting any timeout or interval that doesn't technically need to be
>- Where timeouts are technically required and cannot be overridden, allow as
>much time as is technically allowable.
>- Avoid fixed-speed scrolling. Offer control over objects that scroll or
>flash messages in sequence (title credits, end credit scrolls, etc.).
>"As much as possible" in this context is not necessarily as lax as it would
>appear. For a vast majority of the content out there, "as much as possible"
>is forever. There is no need for most web pages to refresh, reload, scroll,
>flash, or time out. And if a site is made to prove that it adhered to the
>guidelines, it is provable via code review or spec documents that the site
>did or did not comply.
>On a tangent: for the "meta refresh" problem, I think that a technique needs
>to be placed in 2.4 to allow meta refreshes in HTML for site redirection
>("this site has moved to..."). It is unfortunately necessary to do these
>redirects on many sites, as the designers do not control the operation of
>the server.
>I think the refresh time should be 0, and the page content should say only
>that the site has been moved and the updated URL. Ideally, there would be no
>need for that content, but if the redirect fails, users will be stuck on a
>blank page. As long as the only content is that pointer, and the page
>provides no content on its own, I think this needs to be an allowable hack.
Anne Pemberton

Received on Sunday, 10 June 2001 17:42:56 UTC