Re: please can you update your vote

*Re: Timeouts *

>>>"Where data can be lost due to timeouts, users are warned at the start
of a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout,
unless submitted data is preserved for a minimum of a 24 hours." (Level A)

I think this language meets the 9 requirements of a WCAG SC.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
We might want to say "warned in text" or some other improvement to the line
"warned at the start of a process"  but that is editorial...  I'm a +1 to
include it in next draft.

*Re: Minimize User Errors*

"The user can select from a choice of valid input values, unless there are
more than thirty one valid values for any section of the input field or
unless this interferes with the main purpose of the content (such as an
evaluation application).

Alternative formats of separator characters such as dash, dots, bracket and
spaces are accepted in numerical inputs except for the use of a dot as a
decimal mark."

I think this meets the requirements of an SC.

I don't think the SC limits the drop down list to only 31... it just says
that there is no requirement to meet the SC if there are more than 31
selections to chose from.

So for instance, if a control said "choose your country" it would be not
failure of this SC to provide a <select> dropdown with 196 countries... nor
would be a requirement to use a dropdown. In other words, a textbox with an
accessible name saying "Your country" would pass this.

Also, I don't think this SC limits the author to <select> boxes. They could
also use checkboxes or radio buttons, or picker widgets like a date picker
or any other of a host of ways that users can select choices among a group.

So from my perspective this SC language is viable for inclusion in the next
draft. It's a big requirement but I think its value is well established. My
only concern is that these days I find <select> boxes to be finicky to work
with screen readers. Sometimes it is because there is a layer of <li>
elements on top of the <select> to style the drop down. Sometimes it just
that some screen readers have trouble with labels on <select> for reasons I
can't explain. However, that seems like something that will be overcome. I
support the SC.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
> *Re: Timeouts*
>
> Reviewing that GitHub issue, and the final language being proposed remains
> unclear (to me).  Are we now being asked to vote on the following text as
> the new proposed Success Criteria:
>
> "Where data can be lost due to timeouts, users are warned at the start of
> a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout, unless
> submitted data is preserved for a minimum of a 24 hours." (Level A)
>
> If that is the case, I support this new language - *This SC is ready to
> go*.
>
>
> ************
>
> *Re: Minimize User Errors*
>
> "The user can select from a choice of valid input values, unless there are
> more than thirty one valid values for any section of the input field or
> unless this interferes with the main purpose of the content (such as an
> evaluation application).
>
> Alternative formats of separator characters such as dash, dots, bracket
> and spaces are accepted in numerical inputs except for the use of a dot as
> a decimal mark."
>
> I am concerned that this SC has lost its way, and morphed into something
> different.
>
> What started as a requirement to Minimize User Errors has now devolved to
> a SC that appears to target the <select> element only, by setting a maximum
> number of child <option> values (i.e. 31).
>
> While I can see the value in limiting or constraining choices/options to
> aid with memory and other coga issues, I question whether the current
> language is sufficient to address the core issue originally articulated:
>
> "The intent of this Success Criteria is to minimize user generated errors
> by detecting, and when reliable and possible, automatically correcting
> common input errors."
>
>
> One possible "Technique" to avoid/meet this new SC would be to simply not
> use <select> elements in your forms (and thus avoiding *any* quantity of
> values being offered) - which I do not think is the intent of the Coga TF,
> nor something that I could support.
>
> As such, while I strongly support the intent of this proposed SC, I reject
> that current revised language as "missing the mark", and request further
> editorial revisions.
>
> JF
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:06 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have edited the time outs and Minimize user errors  drafts. I think we
>> may be very near consensus. Please can you update your vote
>> 1) Timeouts: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/
>> 2) Minimize user errors: https://www.w3.org/200
>> 2/09/wbs/35422/minimize-user-errors-13/
>>
>>
>> For Minimize user errors we need to point out in the understanding
>> section that the user can also enter free form text and that if any section
>> of the input field is like a field record (so if each digit going up to 9
>> in a large number is not included)
>>
>> You will also find in the github issue some more notes. please feel free
>> to add there more clarifications that may be needed.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>