Re: new wording for Undo

Hi David

The problem is that we lose a large number of use cases, such as picking up the tablet and everything is now gone. It wasn't a step in the process , it was a mistake.
Now I want to go back.



All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:13:21 +0300 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
  
 CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
 Tel:  613.235.4902
 LinkedIn 
 
 twitter.com/davidmacd
 GitHub
 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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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