W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 12:47:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxy98yzDB83EstqBosReNtP79fXwK5Anpa7MbtU=dqV9Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Minor nit,

Often, "timeouts" are not set "...by the content..." but rather enforced by
the server as part of a larger security "blanket" of requirements and
configuration settings. As such, I'd like to see an editorial change,
perhaps along the lines of:

"For each time limit set by the content encountered by the user where
user-entered data can be lost..."

Of the 3 options Andrew offered, I am most in favor of Option 1, but I cold
live with Option 2.

I could also support Option 3 as being simpler to articulate (but unlike
some, I *DO* have an over-arching concern over how many new SC will come
forward in WCAG 2.1, and so while splitting this one into 3 may be
beneficial, it does come with a cost).


On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>

> We had vigorous discussion on the Timeouts SC proposal on the last call.
> The bottom line as I was hearing it on the call is that people recognize
> that there is value in the idea that users should have advance notice of
> time limits that the content imposes on the users. The challenge is in how
> we make this happen.
> There was also a question raised by Jason about how this fits with 2.2.1
> and that it might be confusing because it is separate. This is potentially
> true, but also a decision that we decided to defer until we see more of the
> SC that we accept and can decide whether to only add SC or if we can modify
> existing SC. This one might fit within a modified SC 2.2.1 but at least for
> now it is separate.
> It seems that there are a few options being discussed:
>    1. advance notice, with an exception for sites that retain
>    user-entered data for a day.
>    2. Advance notice, pure and simple.
>    3. Break apart into 3 SC – one to provide advance notice of any time
>    limit, one to save data for a day, and one to address inactivity time limits
> Here are a few options:
> Relates to option 1:
> "For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data can be
> lost, the user is advised about the time limit at the start of the process
> unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the
> limit is reached.”
> Relates to option 2 (suggested by mike gower and Steve Repser, edited into
> the same form as above):
> "For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data can be
> lost, the user is advised about the time limit at the start of the process."
> Relates to option 3 – it would seem that the shorter version proposed by
> mike/steve would address the first SC, but I’m not sure what the “24 hour
> data retention” SC would look like, nor how the “inactivity time limit” SC
> would differ from the mike/steve version.
> What do people think? Option 1, 2, 3, or something else?
> Thanks,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk

John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 17:47:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC