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: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:30:58 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
CC: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2b7d94c89ac0487da8c89dfa153bc788@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
One potential way to remove any ambiguity on that interpretation and to include fixed, inactivity, or more complicated timers might be to word it something like:

Timing Notification: For each time limit that is set by the content, the user is advised at the start of the process about the length and scope of the timer, and at least one of the following is true:

·         On Change: Additional notifications are provided whenever the timer is changed (e.g. reset, paused, or time is added or subtracted).

·         Continuous: The time remaining is continuously displayed throughout the process and is updated in at least 1 minute intervals.

I wrote this pretty quickly so I’m sure there’s more elegant language.  The 2nd bullet would be to cover more complicated timers or sites that want to go an extra mile.

“Scope” may or may not be the best word here, but the idea is simply to tell me what is being timed in addition to the limit.  For most sites, sufficient notifications might be: “You have 15 minutes to complete your ticket purchase”, “Your purchase session will be timed out after 15 minutes of inactivity”, etc.
I removed any mention of “where user-entered data can be lost”.  I personally don’t understand why that restriction is in the language and seems like fluff to me (especially since it is neither in 2.2.1 nor 2.2.3), but perhaps I missed why that’s needed.

Finally, at least to me, the exception when data is preserved seems to undermine the actual user need of advance notice.  If we keep that exception, I’d recommend that we also state explicitly that the user should be notified of that (e.g. “We timed you out due to 20 minutes of inactivity, but you may log back in to continue your task from where you left off.”).  This would be an extra bullet.

Steve
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 8:12 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts

> I interpret this to mean the amount of time in the current limit. So if I have a site with a 30 minute limit, I have “there’s a 30 minute limit”, and then in order to satisfy 2.2.1 I have “your time is expiring, click “extend time” if you would like another 20 minutes” and that would also serve as notification of the new 20 minute limit.

I'm fine with that for this draft ... but if someone with a disability is making a decision on whether they have enough time to complete the task, then I don't think that this notification gives them what they need. In your example they actually have 50 minutes, but might abandon the task thinking they only have 30 minutes and don't think they can do it in that time ...


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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 Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
David,
I interpret this to mean the amount of time in the current limit. So if I have a site with a 30 minute limit, I have “there’s a 30 minute limit”, and then in order to satisfy 2.2.1 I have “your time is expiring, click “extend time” if you would like another 20 minutes” and that would also serve as notification of the new 20 minute limit.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 20:27
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>, Gregg Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>>, Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts

+1 on this Andrew

The only outstanding thing for me is the determine whether the the notification for the amount of time available to the user is the default value or the extended value required in 2.2.1.

But deciding on that can be be later and is not a blocker for the next draft for me.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:(613)%20235-4902>

LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510637173&sdata=oAkwi8vj5DOMn95SOiUk4X%2FtMx3DICPn4%2FMArsuy2mA%3D&reserved=0>

twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510637173&sdata=TAj%2B8PHjHyuiPH5bN1iuCX%2B2KGEOulE5D4tnCDwDyfM%3D&reserved=0>

GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510637173&sdata=GxviL2xtbN1JG%2BzaKImq2nFsLGDjJr1enElegTXkRcU%3D&reserved=0>

www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510637173&sdata=n9KUhFwE443RVFHZHmm1nd3WuHtGc4TlapNxHqlhf2w%3D&reserved=0>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510647181&sdata=rwGVSuB6j%2F3dg916aDpZDiomTl2ZyQJ8qL75NNtb9Es%3D&reserved=0>

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
Jason/Katie/David/Gregg/others,

This SC proposal relates to the user needs document for Entering data, error prevention & recovery (https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#table-3-entering-data-error-prevention-recovery<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fcoga%2Fmaster%2Fgap-analysis%2F%23table-3-entering-data-error-prevention-recovery&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510647181&sdata=IfdYsp5U5PzibuVQ2dvkW09VEK4R1Xint6NPc7rgwM8%3D&reserved=0>). The most applicable user need is “I need enough time, and not lose my work”. Unfortunately, we can’t expect that all sites will be able to offer unlimited time on a task, so SC 2.2.1 has requirements related to the user being able to remove, adjust, or extend the limit, with a few exceptions.

What we have heard from the COGA TF is that part of the barrier is not knowing whether a task can be completed in the time allowed. If the user knows that there is a 10 minute / 60 minute / no limit they can decide whether to make sure that they collect all of the needed information first or just go ahead and start work.

A site can pass 2.2.1 this by (not including a limit, notifying the user about the time limit in advance, or remembering information for the user).

This seems to be the version that most people are happy with:
For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit at the start of the process, unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached.

The outstanding issues seems to be:

  1.  Jason is concerned that this SC isn’t addressing the user need

     *   For this, I think that the COGA group is saying that it does, even if it is not as broad as the original proposal.

  1.  Katie is concerned that the retention time is needed

     *   For this, it seems the only way that this would make sense is if there was authentication for the user (that is, time limits are in place for a reason, whether security or privacy, etc so sites that use time limits will typically have a good reason). If we are talking about data retention for authenticated sites, that is SC 2.2.5 (AAA). "When an authenticated session expires, the user can continue the activity without loss of data after re-authenticating”.
One approach would be to accept the new SC at AA and to discuss promoting 2.2.5 to AA.

What do people think about that?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C641f762e4ba5463a036708d498048171%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636300592510647181&sdata=JrmduT2I4Qj5TftvOWaJMxoiOnOZTT4lhxBeyyK8GUA%3D&reserved=0>

From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 12:41
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>, Gregg Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>>
Cc: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts



From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:29 AM
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)

[Jason] It’s viable, but I’m not enthusiastic about it, as it doesn’t solve the user’s problem. Could we better confine the use of options 2 and 3 in SC 2.2.1?
That is, can we state the circumstances in which it’s acceptable to use option 2 or 3? At the moment, it’s entirely at the author’s discretion, whereas from the user’s point of view, either the first option (the time limit can be removed) or the last option (it’s more than 20 hours in duration) is far preferable. The exceptions are outside the content author’s control and so would remain in any case.

________________________________

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 Thursday, 11 May 2017 15:31:57 UTC

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