W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2014

RE: WCAG-ISSUE-42 (Timing Adjustable): Should we fail timing-adjustable when a session times out from inactivity [HTML & ARIA Techniques TF]

From: WebKeyIT <v.conway@webkeyit.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:55:45 +0800
To: "'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002901d005e6$aaeb03d0$00c10b70$@webkeyit.com>
Hi David

I faced this same situation in a recent test.  Firstly, the user was not informed that inactivity would result in a time-out.  Secondly, when using the screen reader and associated keyboard controls such as tab and shift-tab to move around the page, this did not stop the time-out.  It seemed to be limited to alpha/numeric keys only.  We failed them on 2.2.1, but the client could not figure out how to deal with it as they were using telerik controls they couldn't alter.  We had suggested a modal box with a suggestion to press a numeric key, however as the user would be in a form, pressing an alpha/numeric key would cause that key stroke to be entered into the form.  User testers prefer well in excel of the 20 second warning, and users with anxiety-disorder find the whole thing of time-out warnings causes problems.  I'll be interested to hear others thoughts.

Please note that I check my emails at 9am and 4pm (or roughly).  If you need me for something urgent between these hours, please feel free to message or phone me on my mobile, 0415 383 673.


Vivienne Conway, Ph.D., B.IT (Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(CS)

Web Key IT Pty Ltd
PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
Phone: (08) 9206 3987
Mobile    0415 383 673   
Facsimile   (08) 9325 6422

E      v.conway@webkeyit.com 
W    www.webkeyit.com 

This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Web Key IT Pty Ltd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2014 5:39 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: WCAG-ISSUE-42 (Timing Adjustable): Should we fail timing-adjustable when a session times out from inactivity [HTML & ARIA Techniques TF]

WCAG-ISSUE-42 (Timing Adjustable): Should we fail timing-adjustable when a session times out from inactivity [HTML & ARIA Techniques TF]


Raised by: David MacDonald
On product: HTML & ARIA Techniques TF

Many sites fail 2.2.1 for timing not adjustable because sessions time out without warning. For remediation, I generally suggest they provide a modal dialogue box with "do you need more time" with Yes/no buttons. However, thinking this through I'm wondering if we should perhaps provide a bit of guidance that this not be a failure in *all* situations. It is one thing to have a time limit on a task... that should have a requirement on 2.2.1.  but a time out from inactivity, perhaps should be treated differently. If the timing is measured on the back end it could be a problem because the person might be working away and the application doesn't know it, then times them out...but if the application is listening to activity in the DOM on the client side, any activity should keep the connection open...Maybe we could consider 2.2.1 met automatically if the listening is happening on the front end, and it keeps the session active as long as there is a reasonable amount of activity.... wondering what other think.
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 23:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:16 UTC