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: Wed, 10 May 2017 07:28:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDaZPis87ysQG1Q13bTOfkHgAVC5Uxig_URo6XoXZM92bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree, we should not pursue a "save data 24 hours" SC

I think the SC requiring advance warning for time limits which states the
amount of time available (if this time limit is known by the author) is a
viable SC (or viable addition to 2.2.1)

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 11:58 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
wrote:

> This is very weird
>
> I typed that comment at the top of a pasted clip from your comment — not
> what is show below….
>
> (or at least I thought i did )
>
> Katie had it right .
>
> thought I had pasted my comment right above
>
> 2.       *Save Data 24 Hours*: For each instance where user-entered data
> can be lost due to a time out, the user is given the option to preserve the
> data for at least 24 hours.
>
> *g*
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > 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 <(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 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 Wednesday, 10 May 2017 11:29:13 UTC

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