Errata/clarification of 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable extension (counterproposal) #2581
Conversation
…posal) A counterproposal to #1040 that aims to keep backwards-compatibility with the 2.0/2.1 version which some are arguing did in fact intend the "ten times" in the extend bullet to refer just to the number of opportunities to extend). In the original, there is no clarification of how long each extension should be, which opens this particular bullet up for being completely gamed by authors (and lead to paradoxical situations where a site that passes this by virtue of offering 10 really short extensions still doesn't actually help real-world users that need more time, not in the same way that the other bullets do). For backwards-compatibility, this keeps the idea of 10 opportunities (if that was indeed the original intent), but adds a further clause about the length of the extensions (and yes, technically this would only need 9 opportunities to be on par with the "adjust" bullet, but for backwards-compatibility this keeps the "ten"). This would then make the bullet more useful (it actually does enforce providing users with more time, rather than being gameable), and be backwards-compatible (while being stricter).
patrickhlauke
added
WCAG 2.1
ErratumRaised
|
I would suggest re-surveying this with four options:
|
|
Sorry, I am not in favor of this one either.
If the original time limit was reasonably generous, this qualifier is needlessly excessive. |
big "if" though, since the SC doesn't say anything about the original time limit either |
| @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ <h4>Timing Adjustable</h4> | |||
|
|
|||
| <p>The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the | |||
| time limit with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user | |||
| is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or | |||
| is given ten opportunities to extend the time limit (with each extension having the | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably want to keep the "at least" language in there
| is given ten opportunities to extend the time limit (with each extension having the | |
| is given at least ten opportunities to extend the time limit (with each extension having the |
|
The intent of the SC was to give users 10 time more than the time limit typically provided.
If 90 minutes is excessive for the typical user - then that could be reduced to what is needed.
If 90 minutes is how long a typical user needs to complete whatever activity they need the resource for - then the user with disabilities should be given the option of 10 times that time to complete the activity. And that was not seen as excessive for people with some disabilities.
NOTE
if they are talking about a resource like a movie — the time limit would only apply to the time needed to operate the movie - not watch it.
If they are talking about a book or some thing that you can typically read in 90 minutes - then indeed the SC was intended to allow for people with disabilities to be able to have up to 10 times that length to read the read the thing.
It is ok to clarify the SC - or to disagree. But we should not now be changing it or reinterpreting it to be other than what was intended when the working group reached consensus and added it. As co-chair at the time - I can attest to what was intended, and it can also be seen in the previous bullet what was intended and also in the Understanding document.
BUT in applying it —
it was intended to give 10 times the time for the person to complete some activity. We can clarify that.
It was not intended to give them 10 time the time it takes a roast to cook (but yes 10 times the time to prepare it) — if you will.
So if there was a form — 10 times the time to complete it
If there was a wait time for a response from the organization - no - not 10 times.
And not 10 times the warranty period
but yes 10 times the time to fill out a warranty claim.
I hope this helps
Gregg Vanderheiden
***@***.***
|
|
I agree with what Gregg Vanderheiden wrote in a comment below the other issue:
Based on that, here is an alternative rewording:
This adds "with the default duration" in the middle of the sentence instead of adding a longer parenthesis at then end, and replaces "with a simple action" with "by means of ..." to avoid repetition of "with". |
|
That works
Or switch the "by" and "with" to read
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit by the default duration with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times;
gregg
———————————
Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor.org
The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net
The Morphic project https://morphic.org
… On Aug 10, 2022, at 5:20 PM, Christophe Strobbe ***@***.***> wrote:
Alternative rewording:
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with the default duration by means of a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times;
This adds "with the default duration" in the middle of the sentence instead of adding a longer parenthesis at then end, and replaces "with a simple action" with "by means of ..." to avoid repetition of "with".
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2581 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXX4YYI6R2CEIS33VEDVYRBL7ANCNFSM56CKBQPQ>.
You are receiving this because you commented.
|
|
Or even a bit clearer — add ''another" to either version
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit by another default duration with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times;
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with another default duration by means of a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times;
gregg
———————————
Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/>
The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net <http://gpii.net/>
The Morphic project https://morphic.org <https://morphic.org/>
… On Aug 10, 2022, at 5:20 PM, Christophe Strobbe ***@***.*** ***@***.***>> wrote:
Alternative rewording:
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with the default duration by means of a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times;
This adds "with the default duration" in the middle of the sentence instead of adding a longer parenthesis at then end, and replaces "with a simple action" with "by means of ..." to avoid repetition of "with".
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2581 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXX4YYI6R2CEIS33VEDVYRBL7ANCNFSM56CKBQPQ>.
You are receiving this because you commented.
|
|
My suggestion for making this sort of normative change would be to replace the current Extend bullet with two options: Current:
Proposed:
FWIW, I don't think we have time for a normative change to 2.2.1. (And we would need better names for the bullet labels.) Also, I have not read any compelling reason why each extension should be the same time length as the length of the default setting. The longer the default setting, the less reason the extension needs to match. Keeping the 2.0 RAR choice is important. |
|
I agree on normative change at this point. The chairs can chime in to confirm that or not.
But to clarify your suggestion…. are you suggesting changing one bullet into two?
If two - then they both say the same thing. The first is just not very clear - and that is what the discussion is all about.
This provision was for people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities -
Changing the current text to your second version ...
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed enough of these opportunities to extend the time limit to at at least ten times the length of the original default setting; or
.. could be done though — since this would not be a normative change since that was the original intent of the SC and would provide the same coverage for people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities (and other disabilities)
gregg
———————————
Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor.org
The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net
The Morphic project https://morphic.org
… On Aug 11, 2022, at 10:50 AM, Bruce Bailey ***@***.***> wrote:
My suggestion for making this sort of normative change would be to replace the current Extend bullet with two options:
Current:
The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or
Proposed:
• Extend1of2: The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed at least ten opportunities to extend the time limit; or
•
Extend2of2: The user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "press the space bar"), and the user is allowed enough of these opportunities to extend the time limit to at at least ten times the length of the original default setting; or
FWIW, I don't think we have time for a normative change to 2.2.1.
Extend
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2581 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXRZ4ON2SYKHRBBKHBLVYU4ONANCNFSM56CKBQPQ>.
You are receiving this because you commented.
|
Yes.
No, that is not correct. The current Extend — as written — requires ten opportunities. And my opinion is that the SC should have an the editorial change to make this even more explicit. Then we could add a bullet which gives the choice of the 20 second warning and opportunity for extended time of ten times the length of the default time limit. Current Adjust bullet (emphasis added):
So my proposed Extend2of2 bullet is similar to that requirement, but without the before caveat. @GreggVan you also wrote (emphasis added):
In this case, the original intent does not matter. What matters is what we published. As published, the plain reading of the Extend bullet is ten opportunities not ten times the length of the default timeout setting. |
How many opportunities need to be provided is not what we are debating here, unless I have misunderstood the issue. The question is by how much time each opportunity extends the timeout. What Gregg and I are saying is that each opportunity extends the timeout by the original duration of the timeout. So if the original timeout was 20 minutes, each opportunity gives the user an additional 20 minutes. That's what we regard as the original intent.
Update: I should have read the following:
But then adding another bullet just creates a normative change, just like editing the original Extend condition would. |
|
The issue that has been identified is that the current "Extend" condition does not state how much time should be added, so ten times 1 minute would meet the letter of the SC (i.e. if you ignore the original intent). Bruce Bailey proposed to replace the current "Extend" condition with the following:
Extend1of2 does not state how much time should be added, i.e. there is no requirement to add the duration of the original timeout. As a consequence the loophole is not closed. Extend2of2 uses the wording "at least ten times the length of the original default setting" from the "Adjust" condition (with the addition of "original") but does not require that the user be given ten opportunities. As far as I can see, this is a proposal to change the normative text without closing the original loophole. Extend2of2 comes down to a general technique for meeting the "Adjust" condition of the SC. It is essentially a variation of G180 but with the addition of a providing a warning and giving the user at least 20 seconds to do a simple action. If we don't close the loophole, I would write that up as a technique rather than going through the process for changing normative content. |
I do not agree that it is at all a problem that the current Extend bullet does not state how much time should be added. There is no loop hole. Having ten opportunities to get more time is a generally a good and sufficient UI. Of the six choices in 2.2.1, I would say it is the one I see implemented the most.
Yes, and that is fine. Presumably the site owner (in this hypothetical case) believes that to be an acceptable customer experience for everyone. The PWD still has 20 seconds and simple action to get that minute. Does anyone have examples of site providing only trivial amounts of additional time? It is my clear impression that this is only a theoretical abuse of the SC.
I am not ignoring the original intent: providing end-users enough time to read and use content by mitigating time limits. 2.2.1 requires timing adjustable but provides flexibility to the site owner providing six distinct options. |
A counterproposal to #1040 that aims to keep backwards-compatibility with the 2.0/2.1 version which some are arguing did in fact intend the "ten times" in the extend bullet to refer just to the number of opportunities to extend).
In the original, there is no clarification of how long each extension should be, which opens this particular bullet up for being completely gamed by authors (and lead to paradoxical situations where a site that passes this by virtue of offering 10 really short extensions still doesn't actually help real-world users that need more time, not in the same way that the other bullets do).
For backwards-compatibility, this keeps the idea of 10 opportunities (if that was indeed the original intent), but adds a further clause about the length of the extensions (and yes, technically this would only need 9 opportunities to be on par with the "adjust" bullet, but for backwards-compatibility this keeps the "ten").
This would then make the bullet more useful (it actually does enforce providing users with more time, rather than being gameable), and be backwards-compatible (while being stricter).