- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 07:28:37 -0400
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDaZPis87ysQG1Q13bTOfkHgAVC5Uxig_URo6XoXZM92bQ@mail.gmail.com>
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