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: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 17:04:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZpr1MZq1Yc299m_bHAncBhD12fuhrV3g76cimVMrCjsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *[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?*

I don't think option 3 (separate SCs) is viable. Option 2 is identical to
Option 1 but no longer has the possibility of the author holding onto the
data for a day instead of notification. I don't know if "how long it is"
should include extensions or not. Sounds worthy of discussion, I brought up
that point last week on the call.

>  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 agree if this SC is put in the draft we'd need to either integrate them
or carefully explain them in the understanding or adjust SC wording after
August deadline for rough drafts of all consensus SCs. I think, given the
Working Group's self imposed time line, we should trust the COGA TF
recommendation that this is important. There are about 16 weeks before the
end of August, saying we have to study further is saying don't include it.

> [Alan] I’ve seen time limits announced that they were going to expire or
the user will be logged out due to inactivity, but I have never seen anyone
have it such that the time duration is advised or provided to a user before
they start a process.​ That may be a challenge.

Have you said that in a survey? This SC has been under consideration for
several weeks including two calls. Currently, Air Canada has an
announcement of the time remaining to fill out the travel flight tickets,
and actually has a countdown clock onscreen. I could try to ask them if
they've received any positive or negative comments about it.
​ ​

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 Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:26 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *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 21:05:08 UTC

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