SC2.2.6 (Timouts) should be for all websites

[guyhickling]

The Timeouts SC about giving advance warning of timeouts in a data input process is at Level AAA. But it would be so helpful to users on all websites. It is a basic need of disabled users on all websites, if their disability makes it difficult to complete forms or complex processes quickly; it should not be a nice extra just on those few websites willing to go to AAA level.

There is nothing worse than being distracted from your screen temporarily and returning to find a timeout message appeared and the process was then aborted while you were away, and all your input has been lost! (True, most websites use the "Extend" option of SC2.2.1, but that is of no use if the user is distracted by something else when it appears.)

It isn't as if the development solution is difficult. Giving advance warning just asks the designer to display a single sentence of text at the start of any input process that contains a timeout. So why has it been made AAA level - is that because it was originally connected with the existing AAA SC2.2.5 on the similar subject? But the solution to that is difficult, whereas the solution to this Timeouts SC is so simple it doesn't need to be at AAA level.

Please can this SC be moved to level A so everyone (it would even help non-disabled users) can potentially benefit from it on all websites?

[alastc]

Hi Guy,

(Unofficial response)
In terms of timings & process, the window for changing SCs (text, scope or levels) has past.

From memory (I can ask around for more) I think it was considered AAA because it isn't always possible to do (i.e. applicability across content/sites).

If you think about online games, or even things like Facebook or Flickr the 'input' can be at pretty much any time and notifications would be overwhelming. There were lots of details to consider on this one, but that was what I remember as the sticking point - applicability.

If that aspect can be resolved/solved we could consider a new SC for 2.2. Would you be ok with this being marked as something for future versions?

[michael-n-cooper]

This issue was moved to w3c/wcag#392