RE: Follow up from the meeting on Issue 14: timeouts

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:31 AM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; 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

If it made people more comfortable I wouldn’t have a concern about adding:

Time Limits: 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.

  *   Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (for example, an auction), and the length of the time limit is not known.

How’s that sound?
[Jason] This is better, although I don’t support the proposal as it stands – I think we need either the parallel success criterion to 2.2.1 that removes options 2 and 3, or the refinement of 2.2.5 that was considered at the meeting for inclusion at Level AA. Thus, I think the above is an improvement to the proposal, but I don’t favor the proposal as I think its claimed benefits are over-stated and it doesn’t address the underlying user need well.


________________________________

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.

________________________________