Re: new wording for Undo

PS But I think we should go with the steps approach...

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 8:38 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> > 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.
>
> ​I understand that presenting UNDO in the context of steps is a narrowing
> of the scope, and that there would be use cases lost. The proposal was
> intended to catch the bulk of the issues and to improve testability and
> implementability.​
>
> It's always a balance. It's sometimes hard to know where that balance
> needs to be struck. Its tight and clear SC now. Previously it was quite
> open and harder to interpret, hard to test and implement without steps, but
> I'm open to flying it without steps, and keeping steps as a way to address
> comments and objections when they arise.
>
>
>
> 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 Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:30 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> * > Does this mean “any” or “at least one”? *
>>
>> I think my wording requires that use return to any previous step, which
>> I've made explicit below ... But I think we'll need to either put that out
>> for public comment or discuss with developers the implementation issues
>> involved in going back more than one step, and balance that against the
>> benefits.
>>
>> 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 any previous step to
>> correct their data entry, without loss of data they entered, 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 Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:13 AM
>>> *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>>> *Cc:* W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: new wording for Undo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's good, I'd just suggest keeping the object consistent, so say
>>> "previous step" rather than previous context.
>>>
>>> *[Jason] Applying this to David’s proposal, the reference would be to “a
>>> previous step”. Does this mean “any” or “at least one”? That is, does the
>>> option of moving back only one step satisfy the SC, or must the user be
>>> able to move back any number of previously completed steps before making a
>>> correction? This seems ambiguous in David’s proposal, which is otherwise a
>>> considerable improvement over previous formulations.*
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>