Success criteria for checkpoint 2.2

The bulleted list of success criteria for Checkpoint 2.2 contains the
following item:
* or the user is warned before time expires and given at least 10
seconds to extend the time limit...
 
Proposed rewording:
...
 
Proposed rewording:
... the user is warned before the time-limit expires and is given the
opportunity to extend the time-limit, if the situation permits such
extensions.
 
Discussion:
I'm thinking that it doesn't matter how far in advance the time-limit
warning appears, so long as the user has all the time she or he needs to
request the extension.  (There are situations where such extensions are
not permissible-- for example, in a timed examination where a student
has reached the time-limit allowed under relevant legislation such as
the US Rehabilitation Act or ADA).
 
 
I propose the change because it seems to me there's an inconsistency
here: we're arguing that users should be able to control the timing for
content that requires interaction, and then we're recommending a
specific time-limit.
 
Ten seconds is insufficient in any case.  If a user changed the display
settings in the MS Windows control panel in some versions of MS Windows
(not sure this is true for Windows XP), a dialog box appeared that gave
*15* seconds to accept the new settings.  If you didn't hit "OK" in
time, the settings would revert to the default.  The text in the dialog
was fairly long; by the time JAWS read it and I understood it, I would
often lose the changes I'd made.
 
The default setting for home and office security systems is considerably
longer than 10 seconds-- 20 or 30 seconds is pretty common.
 
John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>