Re: new wording for Undo

I'd like us to consider leveraging the wording from Conformance Criteria #3
(Complete Processes)
 "a step in a process" ... I think it would help with understanding the SC,
and perhaps narrow the scope a bit.

***
When an action is one of a sequence of steps that need to be completed in
order to accomplish an activity, users can return to a previous context to
correct data entry, except when:

•       it would undermine privacy or security;
•       the user has confirmed an action;
•       doing so prevents an essential function of the content;
•       the data is no longer controlled by the site;
•       the user has not interacted with the site for 24 hours.

***

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, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
wrote:

>
>    - [Alistair wrote] Undo: Users can return to a previous context to
>    correct data entry, except when: ….
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> Alistair, I’m not on the COGA task force but I like what you’ve proposed –
> this seems clear to me.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:38 PM
> *To:* lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> *Cc:* W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: new wording for Undo
>
>
>
> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> Sorry, I got distracted by personalisation, but I was trying to simplify
> the wording a bit and got to:
>
>
>
> Undo: Users can return to a previous context to correct data entry, except
> when:
>
> •       it would undermine privacy or security;
>
> •       the user has confirmed an action;
>
> •       doing so prevents an essential function of the content;
>
> •       the data is no longer controlled by the site;
>
> •       the user has not interacted with the site for 24 hours.
>
>
>
> So the changes were:
>
>    - Remove the first few words (undo actions), as the data-entry is the
>    action.
>    - Remove non-dependant data, I think that case is covered in the
>    exceptions. (If that’s a problem, I think another term is needed for
>    non-dependant.)
>    - General word removal.
>
>
>
> I’m not saying that’s perfect by any means, but I find it a lot easier to
> understand, hopefully it hasn’t lost anything in terms of coverage?
>
>
>
> On Jason’s point about 3.3.6:
>
> >  This does not touch on the case were you touched something by accident
> and your page or context has gone. your were typing in a text box and now
> you continue typing and it is going somewhere else. Whilst anoying for
> everyone, you need to be able to work out how to get back to continue.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure how the new SC helps with this, it can say that you have to
> be able to get back, not that it’s easy.
>
>
>
> > Secondly some of  the options in 3.3.6 and 3.3.4  are often not a
> solution by people from COGA usergroups. For example there is a specific
>  techniques (g164) where the Web content would  tell the user how long the
> cancellation period is after submitting the form and what the procedure
> would be to cancel the order. The cancellation procedure may not be
> possible online.
>
>
>
> G164 is a sufficient technique for “a legal transaction …, such as making
> a purchase or submitting an income tax return”, which generally fit under
> one of the exceptions (e.g. confirmation, essential to the functionality).
>
>
>
> I think there is just about justification for this SC (compared to
> updating 3.3.6) on the basis that it is multi-step/page, rather than just a
> page that is submitting info.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>