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: Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:27:29 +0000
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2EC405EEF0B414E8B1415742F1C8BEC6F3A18B2@D2ASEPREA004>
I can't think of why we wouldn't fail it.  The cause can be various, but the results are the same.


Allen Hoffman
Deputy Executive Director
The Office of Accessible Systems & Technology
Department of Homeland Security
202-447-0503 (voice)
allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov

DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
202-447-0440 (voice)
202-447-0582 (fax)
202-447-5857 (TTY)
accessibility@dhs.gov
 
This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.  Thank you.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 1:05 PM
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
Subject: RE: WCAG-ISSUE-42 (Timing Adjustable): Should we fail timing-adjustable when a session times out from inactivity [HTML & ARIA Techniques TF]

I consider a session timeout to be a failure of SC 2.2.1.    I agree we could be more clear about it applying to session timeouts.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:39 PM
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]

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/42


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 Monday, 24 November 2014 18:28:21 UTC

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