20 December 2001 WCAG WG Minutes



Summary of actions, resolutions, issues

F2F Meetings

EOWG would like to meet jointly with us after CSUN in March. IG

23/24 March

Who can make it: Jo, Cynthia, Mark, Loretta (maybe), Jason, Gregg

Gian and Eugenia are questionable.

Gian by phone.

CS Why the weekend? b/c CSUN during the week.

Resolved: move forward on 2 day meeting after CSUN (23/24 March)

June in Scotland in concert w/ASSETS, July 8-10 (monday through wednesday)

Mark likely, Cynthia likely, Jo perhaps

Gian not likely

Loretta, Jason and Eugenia - depends on funding

Unresolved: not sure where to meet after March. Suggestion is in conjunction with ASSETS in Scotland July 8-10 2002.

Checkpoint 2.4 success criteria

CS The 4th is a bit sticky.

GV The "escape hatch." There has been discussion on the list. One thing I remember, separating live events from other. Separate those things that you can't change (e.g. watching a game). Sometimes the timing is controlled by life, i.e. real time. e.g. updating bid prices on something.

CS Another example, competitive games where speed is a part of it.

GV It should be possible to turn off turbo when compete against self but not against someone else.

JW Are we planning a general exemtion clause for all of 2 or 3, or craft individual exemptions.

JM Instead of writing exemptions, can we write it clearly so that people can understand what we do mean rather than what we don't?

CS Pages move and someone puts up redirect. Real solution: do on server and never show user the redirect page. Was a browser problem. Might not be a problem any more. Some people do redirects to do browser sniffing. On the client is not the best way to do it. Some people just put up click here page.

WC Let's document our assumptions. What should be included? What shouldn't? Can we list right now. Then draft wording from there.

JM Automatic log-outs.

GV It's worded "as much as possible" - that part that gives you the out for where not possible. Let's go back to what we want this to cause and list the different cases.

List of examples of interactions that might be covered by checkpoint 2.4

Issue: Perceive or act

GV When discuss competitively referenced games and tests. Are there exceptions?

CS Lots of scenarios for timed things each with different requirements?

GV Say: self-referenced timed task. What are the requirements?

JW Change time scale.

GV Auto log-out.

CS Good security reasons to time out.

JM At log-in, person could request more time. Alerts could let them know how much time is left.

GV In ATM industry, time out in same amount of time but offer to extend time. "do you need more time?" if you touch anything anywhere within 10 seconds, it would let you continue with what you were doing.

JM Seems reasonble for things where security is a big issue, or limited pool of things to buy (return to pool if you're not going to buy).

CS Most places w/login have for good reason, since costly to do.

GV Some do it for marketing reasons.

CS Security or privacy.

GV For security log out, return inventory to stock. ask if need more time. do that indefinitely?

WC Need multiple. What if someone has difficulty figuring out the interface? First bit of time to figure out, 2nd to work through form, 3rd finally complete it. Perhaps even extend it a bit more each time they respond that they need more time.

MS What is the point of extend cycles, again and again?

CS May get taken away for several reasons. Have an option instead of getting logged on.

MK If banking, no problem to keep extending. If ticketmaster or stock, that's a problem to hold on to something valuable for a long time.

JM Don't think we don't need to talk about a number of times. Ticketmaster won't do more than one.

GV Set neither max nor min and that they will do something responsible.

CS Easiest way to implement, set timer to 0.

JM Breaking up forms into simple steps, therefore won't take as long.

CS I prefer longer form.

GV self-referenced timed tasks. Scale time?

CS Yes, within limits of the technology. There are certain techs where you can't insert busy loops to slow things down. e.g. the screen won't repaint when slowing down. I will research this more.

GV busy message - don't have to stick around long enough for people to read?

CS Just keep it short. There is a usability value. Won't always know how long it will take.

JM They may under fall under an exemption.

GV Maybe there is an ability to freeze at user option. Don't want to stick around until you do something. I have had some pop up that I want to read. If you could freeze, so you could read what it did say would be a good thing.

CS Could be hard to implement.

JW Covered by in UAAG?

WC difference between implemented and covered. Don't know of any browsers that implement.

CS Sending a 302 can be exactly what you want to do. User doesn't need to know 3 URLs to do the action.

WC Only matters if I need that information to continue working on the site. Missed busy messages are not important.

GV For timed presentations (moving text) should be user freezable...

CS and user slowable

GV Always user freezable, even if scrolls slowly could still be difficult.

CS Right, good point.

JW Stop it is the requirement, to slow is useful. Essential functionality vs suggested additional functionality.

WC Look at language that UAAG and ATAG use. Success criteria (minimum requirement) and additional.

GV Real time discussions, auctions, etc?

CS Is there anything?

JM In an auction, the interaction could be designed for as few steps as possible.

CS When updating data frequently, don't take focus away from input field.

GV allow preconstruction and single movement entry. If you allow people to communicate and then inject with single keystroke, then you don't have a problem. Doesn't take focus away from input, prepare quote and sit there. Software wouldn't defeat.

WC Would like to see research before make criteria. Do we know someone who makes auction sites? Someone who has a personal experience with auction sites or something like that? How much of this is UAAG? How much is a user strategy (e.g. write in another window, copy, then paste at appropriate time).

GV We ought to apply guidelines to real pages. Auction sites would be good.

CS If dealing with a real-world deadline, is to give them some sort of aid so they can do it with a single keystroke. Good usability in general.

GV Timed-tasks games and tasks.


GV Entrance exams, I don't think we should be messing with that (e.g. real-time captioner).

CS Brainbench has time on theirs so that you don't have time to look up the answers.

GV Many tests do provide additional time. It is a complicated issue and don't think we should address.

CS mention that we considered the topic, but that there are not requirements in this spec.

GV Right, tests have different constructs, it is a complicated issues. These guidelines not expected to be applied to tests.

JW To see what we can abstract from this, do we want to do what is already in 2.4, is that people have the option to freeze or have extra time. They can apply whichever they find is appropriate. Or should we be more prescriptive? User control.

WC Clarification, GV, you said, "guidelines" but you meant "checkpoint" right? Rest should apply to tests.

GV Right.

WC As JW said, don't want to get into specifics here. That type of statement would go into Techniques rather than Guidelines/Checkpoints.

GV Could break into categories.

JW There may be some we haven't thought about, therefore categories difficult to include in guidelines.

Action GV: write a proposal by the end of the week.

Issue: include categories in the guidelines?

$Date: 2001/12/20 22:59:50 $ Wendy Chisholm