- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:59:22 -0500
- To: "'Gez Lemon'" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Yes How about "at least 10 times the timeout period". That would allow you to drop people who left the process but keep most all people who are just slower. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gez Lemon Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 1:47 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: session timeouts - Re: Guideline 2.2 Issue Summary On 10/10/05, Isofarro <lists@isofarro.uklinux.net> wrote: > Be a little wary of the practical implications of these ideas (both > ideas). Server session timeouts are typically there as a means of a > server reclaiming unused memory. In the UK there's also the Data > Protection Act to consider, which, in terms of financial websites and > its related webapplications, its not advisable to keep a session open > indefinitely, nor is it advisable to store potentially private > information in a cookie. Good points, Mike. The only other technique I can think of would be to offer registration and keep the transaction in a database, which would allow them a reasonable amount of time (however much the administrator could afford for a transaction table) to complete the form. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 18:59:39 UTC