Thread Subject: Re: Timing Provision
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 8:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Timing Provision"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Timing Provision"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
can we just use this then? it doesn't sound at all like what was proposed
but it does cover all the bases.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
Hi David
I think the language that Andi is suggesting we harmonize on is
FROM WCAG (AND SAME IS IN ISO AND ANSI)
2.2.1 Timing: For each time limit that is set by the content, at least one
of the following is true:
* Turn off: the user is allowed to turn off the time limit before
encountering it; or
* Adjust: the user is allowed to adjust the time limit before
encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of
the default setting; or
* Extend: the user is warned before time expires and given at least
20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "hit
any key"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten
times; or
* Real-time Exception: the time limit is a required part of a
real-time event (for example, an auction), and no alternative to the time
limit is possible; or
* Essential Exception: the time limit is part of an activity where
timing is <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#activity-timingdef> essential
and time limits can not be extended further without invalidating the
activity.
The "turn off" and "adjust" is usually used for thinks like time limit
before key repeat starts.
The "extend" is usually used in security time-outs where you can't turn it
off or make it longer since it is supposed to detect that a person stepped
away - and log them off so people don't steal from their account etc. to
use this one - you take the normal time out period and subtract 20 second -
and give them a warning. If they are still there - they can ask for more
time - but the security time is not lengthened (security reduced).
Does this answer your testability question ? (It gives specific times
rather than vague terms like "sufficient time". )
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 8:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
>
> "When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted
> and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required."
>
> One issue I have with this is the lack of clarity. the word
> required appears twice in this short statement and seems to
> refer to two different things. I recommend finding a more
> adaquate substitute for the first instance. Perhaps
> restructuring a bit would make it clear. Here is my stab
> below:
>
> "When a timed response is deemed necessary, the user shall be
> alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required."
>
> alternatively:
> "the user shall be alerted and given sufficient time to
> indicate more time is required When a timed response is required,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andi Snow-Weaver" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 5:09 PM
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
>
>
> The Self-contained Closed products subcommittee has
> recommended that there not be a separate category. Rather
> they recommend that in closed products, the hardware should
> meet the hardware provisions and the software should meet the
> software provisions. One consequence of this is that the
> timing provision previously in the self-contained category is
> now in the software section of the current working draft. [1]
>
> We discussed the web version of this provision at length.
> "Sufficient time to respond" is a testability issue. We
> concluded that we should harmonize this with WCAG 2.0. [2]
> The ISO Software Accessibility standard has taken a similar
> approach as WCAG 2.0 and has an identical provision on timing.
>
> Unless there are any objections, I propose that we recommend
> the same provision for software.
>
> Note that we are still discussing some of the latest wording
> changes in WCAG 2.0 and some issues have been raised with
> regard to testing software.
> But in general, I think we are agreed that this is the
> approach we want to take and are just working out some of the details.
>
> [1] http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#D._Timing
> [2] http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#K._Timing_.28Web.29
>
> Andi
>
>
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Timing Provision"
- Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Timing Provision"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
