Thread Subject: Timing Provision

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Fri, Jun 22 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: 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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 22 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Timing Provision

I was just on the Closed Systems call and this coincides with that
discussion perfectly.

It was recommended that Timing be moved out of closed and out of General
Technical Requirements and down to "Software-Interface" section since all
timing aspects (in modern devices) are based on the software.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:09 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 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
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: 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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: 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

>

>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Timing Provision

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

>

>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Timing Provision

I believe this is what Andi proposed. She just pasted a link to a page
with a link to the language into the email instead of pasting the text.

But when she said (using the text from WCAG that also matched ISO this is
what she was referring to (with the 'testing' example removed as I had
removed it)

Andi can confirm when she gets back online.


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 9:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
> 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
>
> >
>
> >

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sun, Jun 24 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Timing Provision

Hi Greg,

I clicked the link and pasted the language I saw. Knowing me and wikies
though, it could have ben my foul.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision


I believe this is what Andi proposed. She just pasted a link to a page
with a link to the language into the email instead of pasting the text.

But when she said (using the text from WCAG that also matched ISO this is
what she was referring to (with the 'testing' example removed as I had
removed it)

Andi can confirm when she gets back online.


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 9:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
> 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
>
> >
>
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Jun 24 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Timing Provision

Yea - I see what you mean.

There were two links. You pasted from the first.
She was suggesting that we not use the first but use the second in place of
the first.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I clicked the link and pasted the language I saw. Knowing me
> and wikies though, it could have ben my foul.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
>
> I believe this is what Andi proposed. She just pasted a
> link to a page
> with a link to the language into the email instead of pasting
> the text.
>
> But when she said (using the text from WCAG that also matched
> ISO this is what she was referring to (with the 'testing'
> example removed as I had removed it)
>
> Andi can confirm when she gets back online.
>
>
> 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 9:39 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
> >
> > 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
> >
> > >
> >
> > >

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sun, Jun 24 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Timing Provision

That's what I get for reading late at night.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision


Yea - I see what you mean.

There were two links. You pasted from the first.
She was suggesting that we not use the first but use the second in place of
the first.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I clicked the link and pasted the language I saw. Knowing me
> and wikies though, it could have ben my foul.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
>
>
> I believe this is what Andi proposed. She just pasted a
> link to a page
> with a link to the language into the email instead of pasting
> the text.
>
> But when she said (using the text from WCAG that also matched
> ISO this is what she was referring to (with the 'testing'
> example removed as I had removed it)
>
> Andi can confirm when she gets back online.
>
>
> 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 9:39 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Timing Provision
> >
> > 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
> >
> > >
> >
> > >