Re: Propose deleting failure for 3.2.5

What's the difference between an "automatic update that the user can not 
disable" and a timeout?

This seems to be something that would be a better fit as a failure under 
2.2.

-Ben

Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> At 02:04 1/03/2006, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
> <blockquote>
> At least for HTML, the only ways I know of to "create a complete change 
> of main content through an automatic refresh" are to use meta-refresh or 
> script.  Both can be disabled in browsers.  Are there other technologies 
> that have these issues?  If so, we could create a general technique 
> about it.  If not, then I don't think this is a common failure for HTML, 
> and I propose that we delete it.
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_complete_change_of_main_content_through_an_automatic_update_that_the_user_cannot_disable 
> 
> </blockquote>
> 
> One issue with automatic updates that the user can or cannot disable is 
> that they need to happen before the user knows that there is an auomatic 
> update in place. The first automatic update is definitely a change of 
> context that the user did not request. That seems to be an argument for 
> keeping the failure. Right?
> 
> Note that meta-refresh can be implemented either with the HTML meta 
> element or with the non-standard HTTP Refresh header (see 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_server-side_techniques_to_automatically_redirect_pages_after_a_timeout 
> for 2.2.1: if you remove the URL part, you get a 'server-side' refresh - 
> although it's really the browser that requests the refresh).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christophe Strobbe
> 
> 


-- 
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>