- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:39:26 -0400
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Greg, I intended this to go to the list originally, and goofed... Do try to think of situations where neither will work. I don't want to tie up legitimate applications, but if everything can be either untimed or controlable, it seems like it could solve the problems for various disabled users. Anne At 10:48 PM 6/12/01 -0500, you wrote: >Hmmmm > >I have to think about this. I think I agree with you but need to think >about whether there are cases that where neither would work. > >Ok to post this to the list? > >Gregg > > >-- ------------------------------ >Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. >Professor - Human Factors >Depts of Ind. and Biomed. Engr. - U of Wis. >Director - Trace R & D Center >Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/ >FAX 608/262-8848 >For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Anne Pemberton [mailto:apembert@erols.com] >Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 7:50 PM >To: gv@trace.wisc.edu >Subject: RE: Revising 2.4 > >I don't think we need "If at all possible" since we are giving two choices: >no time limit, or time limit with user control. If at all possible gives a >third choice, to do neither ... > >How about: If time limits for understanding or interacting with the content >are necessary, give the user control over timed events. > > Anne > >At 04:56 PM 6/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >>If we incorporating Anne's suggestion this would become: >> >>2.4 If at all possible, allow the user to control or do not limit the time >>that a user may need to >>understand or interact with your content. >> * When a time limit cannot be avoided, move as much content >> and interaction as possible out of the time-limited segment. >> * Provide disabled users with a means to bypass or extend >> any remaining time limit. >> * Use delayed refresh or redirection only when necessary to >> bring superceded content up to date. >> * Content must cooperate with user agent mechanisms for >> preventing motion (including flicker, blinking, flashing, >> auto-scrolling etc) and for control of the rate at >> which motion occurs. >> >> >> >>-- ------------------------------ >>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. >>Professor - Human Factors >>Depts of Ind. and Biomed. Engr. - U of Wis. >>Director - Trace R & D Center >>Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/ >>FAX 608/262-8848 >>For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On >>Behalf Of Adam Victor Reed >>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:57 PM >>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >>Subject: Revising 2.4 >> >>I'm leaving for Europe in a couple of days; I may be unable to connect >>regularly while traveling, but I'd like to give 2.4 another shot >>before the face-to-face in Amsterdam. I've tried to incorporate the >>discussion to date. My current draft: >> >>2.4 If at all possible, do not limit the time that a user may need to >>understand or interact with your content. >> * When a time limit cannot be avoided, move as much content >> and interaction as possible out of the time-limited segment. >> * Provide disabled users with a means to bypass or extend >> any remaining time limit. >> * Use delayed refresh or redirection only when necessary to >> bring superceded content up to date. >> * Content must cooperate with user agent mechanisms for >> preventing motion (including flicker, blinking, flashing, >> auto-scrolling etc) and for control of the rate at >> which motion occurs. >> >> >>-- >> Adam Reed >> areed2@calstatela.edu >> >>Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause. >> >> >Anne Pemberton >apembert@erols.com > >http://www.erols.com/stevepem >http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 > > Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 06:29:02 UTC