Re: new wording for Undo

Sure

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 Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> That's good, I'd just suggest keeping the object consistent, so say
> "previous step" rather than previous context.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> _____________________________
> From: David MacDonald
>
>
>
> 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>