14:46:00 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:46:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-ag-irc 14:46:02 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:46:05 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:46:05 ok, trackbot 14:46:05 Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:46:05 Date: 09 May 2017 14:46:23 zakim, agenda? 14:46:23 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 14:46:24 6. Single Key Shortcut Alternative: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/#wbssc [from AWK] 14:46:33 zakim, clear agenda 14:46:33 agenda cleared 14:47:04 agenda+ New EO Tutorials 14:47:13 agenda+ Dealing with comments - process update. 14:47:24 agenda+ Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: === 14:47:33 AWK has joined #ag 14:47:39 agenda+ finish 14:47:39 Timeouts 14:47:39 Minimize User errors 14:47:39 Single Key shortcut alternative 14:47:51 agenda+ Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. 14:47:52 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:47:53 Present: AWK, Melanie_Philipp, Wilco, Rachael, LisaSeeman, jasonjgw, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, MikeGower, kirkwood, Laura, Kathy, KimD, Katie_Haritos-Shea, shwetank, Davidmacdonald, 14:47:53 ... MichaelC, Joshue108, david-macdonald, Jatin 14:48:01 agenda+ [COGA] Plain Language https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30 14:48:01 present: AWK 14:48:08 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:48:08 Present: AWK 14:48:13 agenda+ [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ 14:48:25 agenda+ MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) 14:48:38 +Joshue 14:49:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:49:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/09-ag-minutes.html AWK 14:49:36 rrsagent, set logs public 14:51:38 regrets+ Denis_Boudreau, bruce_bailey, mike_pluke, Lauriat 14:53:11 agenda? 14:53:38 Detlev has joined #ag 14:55:01 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:55:14 present+ JakeAbma 14:55:27 Wilco has joined #ag 14:55:37 Greg has joined #ag 14:57:47 MelanieP has joined #ag 14:58:00 agenda+ Minimize User errors 14:58:36 zakim, drop item 4 14:58:36 agendum 4, finish, dropped 14:58:45 zakim, agenda? 14:58:45 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 14:58:46 8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess] 14:58:46 7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess] 14:58:46 6. [COGA] Plain Language https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30 [from interaccess] 14:58:46 1. New EO Tutorials [from interaccess] 14:58:47 2. Dealing with comments - process update. [from interaccess] 14:58:47 3. Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: === [from interaccess] 14:58:48 5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess] 14:58:48 9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108] 14:58:49 zakim, close item 4 14:58:51 agendum 4, finish, closed 14:58:51 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:58:51 8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess] 14:59:06 Rachael has joined #ag 14:59:58 present+ Detlev 15:00:24 Mike_Elledge has joined #ag 15:00:28 zakim, agenda order is 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 8, 6 15:00:28 ok, Joshue108 15:00:38 agenda? 15:00:49 agenda+ single key shortcuts 15:00:58 EA has joined #ag 15:01:14 zakim, agenda order is 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 8, 6 15:01:14 ok, AWK 15:01:22 alastairc has joined #ag 15:01:28 Present+ Mike Elledge 15:01:53 shwetank has joined #ag 15:02:00 present+ 15:02:27 ChrisLoiselle_ has joined #ag 15:02:48 Scribe: ChrisLoiselle 15:02:53 steverep has joined #ag 15:02:54 present+ alastairc 15:03:06 present+steverep 15:03:17 Alex_Li has joined #ag 15:03:43 I can try to scribe 15:04:21 Scribe: ChrisLoiselle 15:04:28 I thought the webex pw is "ag", is it not? 15:04:54 ok - not sure I am around on that call 15:05:28 gowerm has joined #ag 15:05:34 put me down for 30 may then 15:06:04 I'll do june 13th 15:06:14 AWK: are meeting minutes public? 15:06:15 I can do the 20th 15:06:34 present+ MikeGower 15:06:39 marcjohlic has joined #ag 15:06:54 zakim, next item 15:06:54 agendum 1. "New EO Tutorials" taken up [from interaccess] 15:07:16 laura has joined #ag 15:07:34 present+ shwetank 15:07:53 Makoto has joined #ag 15:08:07 Josh O: surveys will be going group soon on EO Tutorials 15:08:09 present+ Laura 15:08:15 zakim, next item 15:08:15 agendum 2. "Dealing with comments - process update." taken up [from interaccess] 15:08:21 present+ Makoto 15:09:38 Josh O: Comments and public comments vs. member comments. Responding to comments. Some SC managers are engaging with commentor. 15:09:53 More formal commenting will follow later on down the road. 15:09:54 Ryladog has joined #ag 15:10:04 q+ 15:10:11 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:10:24 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:10:24 Present: AWK, Joshue, JakeAbma, Detlev, Mike, Elledge, kirkwood, alastairc, steverep, MikeGower, shwetank, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:10:45 i will call back 15:10:49 Alex L: on queue, can't hear him though. will wait on Alex 15:11:04 q 15:11:10 q+ 15:11:18 Josh O: any comments on SC managers and commenting? 15:11:19 ack alas 15:12:03 JF has joined #ag 15:12:30 AlastairC: need agreement on our response before responding to public / external commentors 15:12:41 i'm back 15:12:56 ack alex 15:12:58 ack alex 15:13:24 KimD has joined #ag 15:13:27 Alex L: not all comments need to be responded to, is there a general standard? 15:13:39 Present+ KimD 15:13:43 present+ Melanie_Philipp 15:13:47 david-macdonald has joined #ag 15:13:50 q+ 15:13:52 Present+ David-macdonald 15:14:07 Josh O: all will need responses, but SC managers can engage with OPs and make responses they believe are appropriate. Official responses need surveys and plus ones for working group stance 15:14:23 ack AWK 15:14:37 Pietro has joined #ag 15:14:47 Present+ Pietro 15:14:56 Jan has joined #ag 15:15:11 zakim, agenda? 15:15:11 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 15:15:13 2. Dealing with comments - process update. [from interaccess] 15:15:13 3. Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: === [from interaccess] 15:15:13 7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess] 15:15:14 9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108] 15:15:14 10. single key shortcuts [from AWK] 15:15:14 8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess] 15:15:16 present+ JanMcSorley 15:15:16 5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess] 15:15:38 AWK: working group responses vs. working draft - SC manager has the ability to respond saying we have a new way of resolving your issues. 15:16:12 present+ Greg_Lowney 15:16:19 zakim, next item 15:16:19 agendum 3. "Logging extra Comments/details on resolutions: ===" taken up [from interaccess] 15:16:55 Lisa has joined #Ag 15:17:29 zakim, next item 15:17:29 agendum 7. "[COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/" taken up [from interaccess] 15:17:53 Lisa you may be muted 15:18:02 Josh O: Lisa on phone? 15:18:50 Kathy W: there was issue with calling in. 15:18:51 Updated wording proposal (from AWK): For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of inactivity that generates a timeout unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the timeout. 15:19:15 shwetank has joined #ag 15:19:55 zakim, agenda? 15:19:55 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 15:19:56 7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess] 15:19:56 9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108] 15:19:56 10. single key shortcuts [from AWK] 15:19:56 8. MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) [from interaccess] 15:19:56 5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess] 15:20:10 James: Use internet connection to have computer call you. 15:20:46 * Me (Kim?) 15:20:48 zakim, take up item 8 15:20:48 agendum 8. "MATF https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/)" taken up [from interaccess] 15:21:28 Kathy W: biggest concern with embedded links, it is a user concern. pose significant challenges on interacting with content 15:21:38 I am on the call but no one can hear me 15:21:46 Will try to call in 15:21:48 https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html 15:22:06 you are muted Lisa 15:22:27 GH summary https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60 15:22:34 q? 15:22:40 if content reflows and links overlap, that is ok. You'd need touch target 15:22:50 present+ jasonjgw 15:24:33 Michael C: Content reflows can overlap...link wrapping...don't understand what is referencing. 15:24:36 zakim, ping me in 10 mins 15:24:36 ok, Joshue108 15:24:58 is an "in" missing? i.e. "A 44x44 CSS pixel target can overlap if it is *in* an element where the links can wrap." 15:25:13 Kathy W: touch target can overlap. Sentence before and after, now touch target is overlapping. That is the exception. 15:25:17 JF_ has joined #ag 15:25:22 q+ to ask for examples 15:25:22 q+ 15:25:53 q+ to say that requiring a size that causes known problems (overlapping interactive elements, which will create confusion) is not a good idea. 15:26:02 Target: Region of the display that will accept a touch action. If a portion of a touch target that does not perform the same action or go to the same page is overlapped by another touch target such that it cannot receive touch actions, then that portion is not considered a touch target for purposes of touch target measurements unless the content can be reflowed so that the touch targets to do overlap. 15:26:02 Michael C: wording "where links can wrap" , touch targets can overlap...wording needs to be addressed 15:26:33 ack greg 15:26:33 Greg, you wanted to ask for examples 15:27:06 Greg L: is there a live example on this regarding touch targets? 15:27:21 Kathy W: Link to Patrick's example 15:27:23 Patrick’s: example: http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe 15:27:23 http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe 15:27:24 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:27:38 ack detlev 15:27:42 ack me 15:27:44 q+ 15:27:48 q+ James 15:28:28 Q+ 15:29:18 Detlev: Overlap would address this exception where there is inline text links. Where they are immediately next to each other. Would be better to have it overlap. 15:29:32 lisa has joined #ag 15:29:54 q+ 15:30:01 Text content wraps vs. just links, real issue is two different links which overlap. Text of SC needs to be addressed. 15:30:14 Kathy W: Agree wording needs to be addressed 15:30:14 ack awk 15:30:14 AWK, you wanted to say that requiring a size that causes known problems (overlapping interactive elements, which will create confusion) is not a good idea. 15:30:15 ack AWK 15:31:03 doesnt need script for that padding! 15:31:25 +1 to AWK 15:31:33 +1 still don't understand why we don't just exempt links in blocks of text 15:31:48 AWK: 44 x 44 is a problem when it comes to links like this. Most links would need this. This may be creating additional confusion. Clicking on one link when it is the target for another link. 15:32:54 q 15:32:57 q+ 15:33:00 Kathy W: push back from user says this is a major issue. can't resolve both sides of this argument. 15:33:07 “when touch targets overlap due to reflow”. I think setting a size 44 pixels is an issue with zooming now on most devices. I think the pixel size shoud be dropped 15:33:11 q+ 15:33:16 Kathy W: targets are close together is the issue here. 15:33:19 zakim, close queue 15:33:19 ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed 15:33:35 I think to address Andrew's (and others') concerns we can lower the vertical value for inline targets to 22px 15:34:06 ack alex 15:34:15 +1 to AWK - potentially cannot ever support this because of text links, footnotes, etc. 15:34:29 Alex L: last exception can't be modified, what does that mean? 15:34:36 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 15:35:06 Kathy W: this was a concern based on comments 15:35:09 ack jame 15:35:33 === question about what the "cannot be modified" exemption is actually for and what an example would be 15:35:43 q+ to ask whether the technique in the demonstration page could also make non-link controls near the text unreachable; and the Content Reflows item should not apply only to targets of an exact size; and "cannot be modified" should be "its size cannot be modified". 15:36:20 James N: Patrick came up with this technique to have larger click area than target itself. Has any testing been completed with VoiceOver? Link vs. target testing. 15:36:32 Kathy W: will double check that 15:36:59 James N: I could test (Patrick's demo). 15:37:19 ack JF_ 15:37:21 Josh O: you can supress the notification vs. the focuc 15:38:16 JF: This seems like a user agent requirement. Patrick's script would have to be used everywhere. Can't mandate this script be integrated by user agent 15:38:29 +1 to JF on not mandating a fixed size 15:39:36 q? 15:40:12 JF: I would need to do some testing too, but one of the problems is that we are defining a 44 x 44 box, and touch target is more a circle. Linear line...square vs. circle. Box model vs. push target 15:40:48 q+ 15:40:59 q+ 15:41:02 q+ 15:41:07 Kathy W: we might have to drop this, or have someone contribute to the solution. 15:41:09 ack dav 15:41:10 === AWK volunteers to look hard at this one before Thursday 15:41:56 q- 15:42:08 David M: in agreement, we don't know what user is using to control the link. inline links will get some pushback. suggestion would be 44 x 16 15:42:53 q+ to say that zoom with reflow won't fix this problem 15:42:58 bigger target , pinching and zooming in to click on link 15:43:39 Josh O: Interdependency of SC 15:44:32 Kathy W: think we are losing the end user perspective. relying on zoom is probably not the way to go. People who are not "touching" screen, i.e. people with tremors. 15:44:33 +1 t what Kathy is saying 15:44:38 ack mike 15:45:00 +1 to Kathy also - lets not forget 15:45:30 +1 with katy 15:45:31 q? 15:45:35 q- 15:45:40 Mike : triple A would be applied to links, give people ability to improve links, but wouldn't require them to in AA 15:45:46 ack gow 15:45:52 s/katy/Kathy 15:45:54 David responds that 44px may not be big enough for users with tremours. So we may not meet the needs of those with severe tremours only 15:46:07 who is speakking , Mike ? 15:47:01 +1 to what Mike Gower says 15:47:13 +1 15:47:19 q+ to comment that the focus indicator uses the overlap as well 15:48:11 Mike G: exempting text links does not wipe out benefit of this. In people with tremors, user agents and operating systems can help and we don't have to get all items in to the SC by default 15:48:31 present+ marcjohlic 15:48:35 Staggering criteria over a couple of levels, AA, vs AAA 15:49:37 zakim, next item 15:49:37 agendum 7. "[COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/" taken up [from interaccess] 15:49:40 === Continue on Thurs 15:49:46 q+ 15:50:22 I suggested a version that seems to address people's stated issues: 15:50:24 For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of inactivity that generates a timeout unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the timeout. 15:50:48 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/results 15:51:13 q? 15:51:25 q+ 15:51:31 Q+ 15:51:39 ack AWK 15:51:40 ack awk 15:51:59 zakim, ping me in 15 15:51:59 ok, Joshue108 15:52:23 ack r 15:52:28 AWK: SC lets the user know what is coming. Doesn't go into sensitive information 15:52:40 q+ 15:52:49 ack jf 15:52:57 Katie H-S: User should be notified "in advance" , that text needs to be re-introduced into SC 15:52:58 For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised in advance about the length of inactivity that generates a timeout unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the timeout. 15:53:40 q+ to encourage people to not view a survey as "a vote" 15:53:40 JF: concerned that language on what we voted on vs. what the language we are discussing is not matching. "In advance" should be in the SC. 15:53:47 ack alex 15:54:28 q+ 15:54:31 q+ 15:54:39 ack AWK 15:54:39 AWK, you wanted to encourage people to not view a survey as "a vote" 15:54:42 Alex L: Purchase an airline ticket, and then the airline ticket is no longer there because someone else bought it? What is the time limit vs. time out? 15:55:08 Lisa : The user should be aware of the time limit they have to complete a task. 15:55:12 We could say "predetermined timeout..." 15:55:20 q+ 15:55:31 Alex L: how do you know when the tickets will be sold? 15:56:10 I.e. real time event vs. time out? 15:56:52 Lisa : Preference is user is aware that price of ticket can change , i.e. this is an estimate 15:57:24 Exceptions are welcome to be discussed and included. 15:57:36 q+ to discuss (a) length of time as well as inactivity; and (b) we postponed deciding on defining what counts as data preservation; and (c) respond to Alex that loss of labor and point in process does not necessarily cause loss of data, which is all that the SC addresses. 15:57:59 "Where data can be lost due to transaction time limits or inactivity timeouts" 15:58:01 q+ to ask how different implementations of time limits would pass and also suggest removing "inactivity" 15:58:27 Alex L: it seems it is unclear on what definition of "time out" is vs. time limit. I will follow up when proposal is drafted. 15:58:52 jamesn has joined #ag 15:59:02 q? 15:59:06 q+ 15:59:09 Where data can be lost due to transaction time limits or inactivity timeouts, users are warned at the start of the process about the time limitations, unless... 15:59:23 AWK: intepreting this as a time out, systematic aspect. Trying to do something, then you are out of time. Can't proceed. I.e. phone automatically hangs up on you in quue. Vs. interacting with a form for limited number of tickets for a baseball game. 15:59:31 ack Josh 16:00:09 q+ to ask why we are not calling it a "time limit"? 16:00:20 AWK: Voting is not being completed right now, discussion and surveys evolve. 16:00:23 q+ lisa 16:00:52 Lisa has joined #Ag 16:01:32 Lisa has joined #ag 16:01:39 Time Limits: Where data can be lost due to transaction time limits or inactivity timeouts, users are warned at the start of the process about the time limitations, unless... 16:02:03 Josh O: airline systems are complex, timeouts will need to be clearly defined. especially for this criteria. Define as time limit and generalize it vs. using the word "time out". 16:02:12 +1 to changing to ‘time limits’ 16:02:18 Inform the user they may be bumped out. 16:02:25 ack gower 16:02:32 For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached. 16:03:11 Mike : plus one on time limits 16:03:15 ack dav 16:03:20 AWK ....still missing 'in advance' 16:03:24 +1 focusing on time limits 16:03:25 +1 for changing to "time limits" 16:03:30 +1 to focus on time limits vs time outs. 16:03:49 +1 to in advance 16:03:56 Andrew wording does not have time outs 16:04:08 q? 16:04:14 So I think this is a red hearing 16:04:14 David M: wording of time limits is a concern. I agree with Alex. Use "pre-determined" timeouts. Let them know 15 minutes is time limit upfront. 16:04:25 Real time exception is also a possibility. 16:05:01 For each time limit set by the content where user-entered data entered can be lost, the user is advised at the start of the process about the time limits unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached. 16:05:22 ack greg 16:05:22 Greg, you wanted to discuss (a) length of time as well as inactivity; and (b) we postponed deciding on defining what counts as data preservation; and (c) respond to Alex that loss 16:05:25 Katie H-S: there are other SC that address advanced notice etc. 16:05:26 ... of labor and point in process does not necessarily cause loss of data, which is all that the SC addresses. 16:07:00 Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time 16:07:10 Greg L: first comment: time outs vs. time limits wording needs to be addressed. Second comment, the word "Preserve" , third thing was responding to Alex: Point in process of ordering tickets. Data loss may not be lost even if you were timed out. 16:07:15 ack steve 16:07:15 steverep, you wanted to ask how different implementations of time limits would pass and also suggest removing "inactivity" 16:08:04 q+ 16:08:11 +1 to removing or rewording inactivity as on mobile a user can be active but not interacting with the server 16:08:15 I would like to see the wording we had agreed upon last week - when we were deciding to add or not sensetive data 16:08:30 Stephen R: "process" wording needs to be in SC. Also, "inactivity" should be removed. I.e. you have 5 minutes to do this. Is not "inactivity", it is a time limit. 16:08:37 +1 to removing or rewording inactivity 16:08:53 q+ 16:08:58 zakim, close queue 16:08:58 ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed 16:09:01 q? 16:09:05 zakim, agenda? 16:09:05 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 16:09:06 7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess] 16:09:06 9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108] 16:09:06 10. single key shortcuts [from AWK] 16:09:06 5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess] 16:09:30 does hitting next cause the user to be re-advised of time limit to complete in a process (5 step process), does it reset each step? or 5 minutes for whole process? 16:10:35 q+ to say the title of the SC should be changed to something like "Time Limit Warnings", because the SC does not affect the time limits, only the warnings 16:10:40 ack james 16:11:35 James N: airline ticket (broad example). End of a process , and user can't do what they wanted to do. I..e no longer available (finite resource). 16:12:20 persistence storage vs. non storage, which session is open for 24 hours? What are the consquences of small shops vs. large companies? 16:12:41 ack ryla 16:12:41 Ryladog, you wanted to ask why we are not calling it a "time limit"? 16:12:56 don't forget the security exemption discussed last time 16:13:35 Last week: "Where data can be lost due to timeouts, users are warned at the start of a process about the length of inactivity that generates the timeout, unless the data is preserved for a minimum of a 24 hours of user inactivity." 16:13:37 +1 to Katie - this seems like it's getting too convoluted to me 16:13:38 Katie H-S: may be making this to hard. Need to go back to the language from last week. This is not about inactivity. It is about warning user about time limit. 16:13:44 +1 to Katie 16:13:49 great idea IMO 16:13:54 The other items can be another Success Criteria. 16:14:04 +1 to Katie. Focus on time limits, drop 24 hours. 16:14:11 +1 to Katie 16:14:12 My edits based on comments: For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached. 16:14:12 ack lisa 16:14:13 +1 to simplifying per Katie 16:14:26 +1 to Katie 16:15:02 Lisa : find things to include in main use case. 16:15:58 all we are asking people to do is warn the users. 16:16:14 Lisa is breaking up on phone call. 16:17:55 My suggestion, lets have this one be about being wanred in advance how much time you have. Short name is: Identify Time Limit. The let have another SC if you want that is (short name) Data Saved 24 Hours. An test the outcome of that one. Then have another SC called (shoer name) Inactivity Time Limit. 16:18:08 Lisa: do we have enough for August deadline? We know main use cases are testable. Whatever needs to be excluded can go into an exclusion list 16:18:33 +1 16:18:54 How about we get a new version that incorporates feedback. 16:18:55 Josh O: we have to try to get as robust of a SC as we can. 16:19:20 +1 to Josh. 16:19:31 Q+ 16:19:55 Josh O: agreeds to Katie's points. Three simple SC that can be parsed that way 16:19:57 +1 to breaking this into 3 SC 16:20:07 ack awk 16:20:08 ack AWK 16:20:50 q? 16:20:58 zakim, agenda? 16:20:58 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 16:20:59 7. [COGA] Timeouts SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Timeouts_Issue14/ [from interaccess] 16:20:59 9. Minimize User errors [from Joshue108] 16:20:59 10. single key shortcuts [from AWK] 16:20:59 5. Update on SCs Touch Target Update (see survey item 1 in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/) - and Resize content #77 CFC. [from interaccess] 16:21:10 For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached. 16:22:00 For each time limit set by the content where data entered by the user can be lost, the user is advised about the length of the time limit at the start of the process unless any user-entered data is preserved for at least 24 hours after the limit is reached. 16:22:02 q+ 16:23:21 need to figure out on how to message time limits 16:23:31 ack jason 16:24:18