- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:13:42 -0500
- To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Agree. Gregg ----------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Ind and Biomed Engr University of Wisconsin-Madison On Sep 12, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote: > > I agree. It is the sort of "null" technique that we don't usually > write up, but since we list it for 2.2.3, we should list it for 2.2.1 > as well. > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Cynthia Shelly > <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote: >> Shouldn't G5 "G5: Allowing users to complete an activity without >> any time >> limit" be sufficient for 2.2.1 (Timing Adjustable)? If you have no >> timed >> events, then you don't need to make them adjustable, right? I'd >> like to see >> it there as a way to meet the L1, since a lot of people won't look >> at the >> L3. > >
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2008 02:14:34 UTC