29 Jan 2004 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Avi Arditti, Mike Barta,  Doyle Burnett, Ben Caldwell, Roberto Ellero, Bengt Farre, Loretta Guarino Reid, Yvette Hoitink, Dave MacDonald, Lisa Seeman, John Slatin, Greg Vanderheiden, Jason White


Roberto Castaldo, Wendy Chisolm, Charlres McCathie-Neville, Roberto Scano, Cynthia Shelly, Andi Snow-Weaver


The working group reviewed the summary of issues for Guideline 2.2 and responded to issues and proposals up to proposal 593.  

Action Items

Guideline 2.2 Discussion

Proposal 626a - accepted

Proposal 626b preferred to Proposal 683, since rules of competition may not be realtime events. But proposal 626a seems like the best of the proposals.

Discussion of time limits, and how much time the user should be given to extend the time timit. You'd really like the user to have at least 10 seconds after he has finished reading and understanding the message. Should use short messages to warn about time limits, because it takes time to read those as well. Can put that in techniques.

Definition: The time limit is part of an activity where timing is an essential part of the activity. The time limit can not be extended without invalidating the outcome.

Reviewed John Slatin's proposed rewording of the success criteria.

After much discussion about what to say about on-line tests, it was decided not to single it out in a separate item but to include it in the competitive activity item.

Proposal 593 -  to be moved to Level 2 and reconsidered.

Level 2 success criteria:

Proposal 629a preferred to proposal 629.  Blinking that lasts less than 3 seconds is permitted. Defined blinking content to be content that turns on and off between 0.5 and 3 times per second

Realized that we need to extend 2.1 (keyboard access) to include author-provided accessibility features (such as controlling moving content).

Accepted modified form of Proposal 628b

Revised Parts of Guideline 2.2

Checkpoint 2.2

"Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction unless specific real-time events or rules of competition make such control impossible."

Success Criteria issues and proposals

Level 1, success criteria 1:

1. content is designed so that time limits are not an essential part of interaction, or at least one of the following is true for each time limit:

*        the user is allowed to deactivate the time limit; or

*        the user is allowed to adjust the time limit over a wide range which is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or

*        the user is warned before time expires, allowed to extend the time limit with a simple action such as “hit any key”,  and given at least 10 seconds to respond; o

*        the time limit is a real-time event (for example an auction), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; o 

*        the time limit is part of a activity where timing is an essential part of the activity (for example competitive gaming or time based testing) and time limits cannot be extended further without invalidating the activity;

Level 2 success criteria # 1

       The user is allowed to turn off content that blinks for more than 3 seconds

Level 2 success criteria #  2

    The user is allowed to pause and/or permanently stop moving content.

[under  2.1      it should say   “this includes author provided accessibility features”]

$Date: 2004/01/30 14:59:01 $ Loretta Guarino Reid