Update timing-adjustable.html

[bruce-usab]

Editorial, clarifying that ten times in Extend bullet does not imply ten times as much time.

Closes PR #1040.
Closes PR #2581.

[awkawk]

@bruce-usab My review on this is that the text is clear and I agree with what it says, but since I also believe that this is what it says already and since the Understanding document doesn't really clarify it sufficiently we should fix it in Understanding rather than changing the normative text.

[awkawk]

(see comment above - I didn't follow the expected Github review process)

[GreggVan]

Disagree strongly with this This would be a major normative change - rewriting the SC to mean something other than what it was originally meant to be. The applied to changes in the Guideline or the Understanding document - that would imply that it did not mean 10 times the typical time. (copying my other previous comments below to not repeat them here) (I’m not sure what we will want it to be in a future version — but 10 times the typical time is indeed what was intended in the original SC. Good or bad) Gregg Vanderheiden ***@***.*** This whole thing was started by the checkout time of 90 minutes for a resource. This is not a time limit of the interface. It looks like a checkout time which is not covered. Would everyone be so concerned if it said the person had 90 SECONDS to fill out a form, and the SC require that people with disabilities should have 10 times 90 seconds to fill out the form I don’t think there would be any concern over that instead of 1.5 minutes to fill out the form, 15 minutes would be allowed either by allowing it to be extended up front (2nd bullet) or by up to 10 90 second extensions (2nd bullet). So I think the problem here is NOT the 10 times default activity time. But the misreading of the provision to apply to resource checkout time. For any other activity - it is not unreasonable to require that people with cerebral palsy or very low vision or cognitive disabilities have 10 times the amount of time to carry out that activity as typical. That is what was in the previous bullet (one method — setting the time limit to 10 times default in advance) and what was intended in this bullet (having up to 10 times the time to carry out the activity via successive extensions of time) =================================================================== They were all meant as alternate ways to address the same problem. No time limit 10x the typical time limit - all at once 10x the typical time limit - done as increments 20 hours time limit (as alternate to #1 for systems that need to reset and can’t be open forever) And then of course the exception for real-life events where there is no option to a time limit without changing the process entirely (like an auction) They ALL were meant to provide a LOT more time To change option 3 so that it could be "the typical time plus 10 1-minute extensions" was not what was envisioned

[bruce-usab]

My review on this is that the text is clear and I agree with what it says

I agree.

but since I also believe that this is what it says already and since the Understanding document doesn't really clarify it sufficiently we should fix it in Understanding rather than changing the normative text.

My preference is this edit, but I am also okay with leaving this SC alone. FWIW, I do not believe this particular pernicious misunderstanding can be corrected in Understanding.

[bruce-usab]

@alastc — please dispose as you see fit. This PR is probably a good candidate for wontfix and close.

[bruce-usab]

This would be a major normative change - rewriting the SC to mean something other than what it was originally meant to be.

@GreggVan — it may be the case that we did not end up writing what you (and others) originally meant to have written. As written, the bullets are independent from each other. My proposed change (in this PR) is editorial on its face.

Current 2.2.1 Extend bullet:

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;

Could have been:

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 opportunities to extend the time limit to at least ten times the duration of the original time limit;

[GreggVan]

Yes the bullet are independent of each other. But that bullet all by itself means, and was meant to mean, that it would be 10 times the regular length. This is not what I wanted it to mean — it is what the COGA people on the working group wanted it to be. And it is what the working group agreed on. That was the consensus of the working group. To decide to reinterpret it to mean something else at this point - would mean that it would be a normative change. If it is not clear - we can make it clear with errata to WCAG or by changing the Understanding doc But we can’t make it "clear but different than the original intent" - in either place. At this point the best we can do is to leave it alone — unless you want to gather people who were around for the original work and quiz them as to what the original intent was. But I spent a lot of time working with everyone to get this one in - and there isnt any question in my mind that the intent was not (10 short extensions to a much longer response time - that did not give the person 10 times the amount of time to complete the assignment. Again - this is not my wording - not my provision. But it is the wording and meaning that the WG reached consensus on. 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 2:52 PM, Bruce Bailey ***@***.***> wrote: This would be a major normative change - rewriting the SC to mean something other than what it was originally meant to be. @GreggVan <https://github.com/GreggVan> — it may be the case that we did not end up writing what you (and others) originally meant to have written. As written, the bullets are independent from each other. My proposed change (in this PR) is editorial on its face. Current 2.2.1 Extend bullet: 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; Could have been: 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 opportunities to extend the time limit to at least ten times the duration of the original time limit; — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2584 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXXMWJ5NXU33PHF7DTLVYQQBHANCNFSM56D3KHTQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[bruce-usab]

Closing as we did not get AGWG concurrence on the underlying tension between RAR and how SC is understood.