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: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:40:34 +0000
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>
CC: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ef847f8151d04b9db8716a134b91aeb4@sap.com>
The rule is “Do not state the obvious”. This also holds true for warnings.
The point is having a number of confirmed valid use cases where warning for time limits is required, extract the general pattern behind these cases (why they apply, what is “data loss” by def etc.) and put that pattern description in a clause. Everything else then is an exception or not a data loss by definition and falls not into 2.2.1

-          Stefan

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu]
Sent: Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 13:23
To: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts

I’m not sure what the current wording is,

but anything that has to do with giving warnings when there is a time limit should have an exception for anything that is based on the real world.

  *   Auctions, filing deadlines, many deadlines, games, real-time interaction, etc. the author isn’t setting the time limit in these cases, it’s a natural function of the fact that something has to be done by a certain time in real-time.
  *   And it would get very tedious (and look pretty strange) if authors had to keep writing on their page every time there was something that had deadline. (“Warning, there is a time limit for you to shoot the enemy. You must shoot them before they shoot you”) (“warning, there’s a time limit on getting onto the elevator. You must get on the elevator before the doors close”)


Gregg C Vanderheiden

On May 10, 2017, at 12:41 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:

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 Friday, 12 May 2017 11:41:10 UTC

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