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: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 20:26:12 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
CC: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR07MB34571BC3D9BE8E0D6BDD7F0CABEF0@BN6PR07MB3457.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 3:37 PM

What do others think? Do we have Alex's concern sufficiently covered with this?

For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data can be lost, the user is advised about the time limit and how long it is at the start of the process.
[Jason] Does “how long it is” include the extensions that the user can make if the content implements 2.2.1, options 2 or 3?
Should the user still be advised about the time limit if the content implements 2.2.1, option 1, as their next action may well be to turn off the time limit?
If the real-time exception applies (2.2.1, item 4), the length of the time limit may be unknown and hence the user cannot be informed of it in advance.

I think the relationship of this proposal to 2.2.1 needs to be more carefully considered, as should the extent of its supposed benefits in light of the fact that 2.2.1 is a Level A success criterion. I’m supportive of having fewer time limits on the Web and of efforts to strengthen WCAG in this area, but I think the merits of this proposal are dubious (especially when considered in conjunction with the narrow exceptions in 2.2.1 and the requirements it sets forth). Lisa’s example of the tax form, mentioned in today’s meeting, would fall under any of the first three options in 2.2.1. Perhaps it’s a weakness of 2.2.1 that the content author can choose any of those three options, and I would prefer a stronger requirement for option 1 (perhaps narrowing the cases in which options 2 and 3 can be used), but I don’t know how to define the circumstances as I’m not familiar with the use cases that provide strong grounds for options 2 and 3.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 20:26:50 UTC

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