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

+1 Andrew. This works for me!

 

Thank you for all of your patience and hard work to address all concerns and still trying to get in these important COGA SCs (that will benefit all if it is able to be adopted)

 

​​​​​* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.

 

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 11:09 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

 

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.

 

Jason,

>From the original email in this thread, option 1 was simply to inform people about the limit, and option 2 is this version, which adds the exclusion if the site can retain the user’s data for 24 hours.

 

We were talking about moving 2.2.5 up to AA, but that will be a next step.

 

As far as not addressing the user need, I think that we have heard very clearly from the COGA group that they feel that this does have a substantial benefit for users with cognitive disabilities. You’ve said that this is the reason that you don’t support the proposal. Can you live with it?

 

AWK