- From: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:56:21 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABpp2mK6u+p7O+axZJCCwPm077ie_Woraazwb0ehyNEKAvKTQQ@mail.gmail.com>
David wrote: "the reason I'm fine with the 24 hrs on this and 20 on 2.2.1 is that the SCs have a different purpose or at least a different raison d'etre. 2.2.1 was to allow someone an arbitrarily long time to do *continuous* work, whereas this one is aimed at providing a way for someone to *take a break* from continuous work." Thanks David - great explanation! While my preference would be that they both match (20 or 24), your explanation has swayed me to vote GO on this one. -Marc On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:59 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > I'm fine with 20 hoursOR 24 hours.... 20 actually made sense at the time > when we put it in ... and the purpose of it in 2.2.1 was that we were > looking for an arbitrary "long time" that someone might be working on a web > site and we figured that everyone needs to sleep at least 4 hours a day. So > they would not be working on anything for more than 20 hours. > > the reason I'm fine with the 24 hrs on this and 20 on 2.2.1 is that the > SCs have a different purpose or at least a different raison d'etre. > > 2.2.1 was to allow someone an arbitrarily long time to do *continuous* > work, whereas this one is aimed at providing a way for someone to *take a > break* from continuous work. > > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902> > > 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 11:33 AM, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I updated my vote and added my comments to the survey for Timeouts >> (copied here). Providing this is the wording: >> >> "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 the data is preserved for a minimum of a 24 hours." >> >> >> >> My comments: >> >> I'm still not comfortable with the" 24 hours" piece. I prefer 24 hours - >> I think 24 hours makes more sense than 20 hours - BUT I feel we will have >> conflicts, confusion, and issues if this SC uses 24 hours while the closely >> related 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable uses 20 hours. >> >> It's frustrating. IMO the best option would be to go with 24 hours here >> and update 2.2.1 to 24 hours as well. But if that's not an option I'm >> thinking this SC should use 20 hours as well until both can be updated. >> >> -Marc >> >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:04 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> *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 <(613)%20235-4902> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2017 20:56:56 UTC