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 17:05:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDa=wmfvFnw1H6Y1BBSdQMtyOREL+c_bz2gA=3TyhNv5_A@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>
> This breaks federal banking laws.   it also breaks a number of privacy
laws I believe.

What does?

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 5:04 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> > *[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 <(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 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 21:05:52 UTC

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