W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2013

RE: [a11y-metadata-project] accessHazard

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@sidar.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 01:57:36 +0200
To: "'Charles McCathie Nevile'" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'Madeleine Rothberg'" <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>, <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014801cebf02$017d6d00$04784700$@sidar.org>
Hi Chaals, all:

When I think of something that flashes, I was not referring to a video or movie but rather to something like an icon or banner, anything that is part of the content in which it is assumed that a person has to pay attention to the rest (text usually) while the other element is flashing.
That can be a real problem for some types of user.
And that is a different case from those elements that can produce a seizure.

Best,

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Patrono y Directora General
Fundación Sidar - Acceso Universal
Email: coordina@sidar.org
Personal: Emmanuelle@sidar.org
Web: http://sidar.org

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de octubre de 2013 1:49
Para: 'Madeleine Rothberg'; a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com; public-vocabs@w3.org; Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Asunto: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] accessHazard

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 00:56:44 +0200, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@sidar.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> I am concerned that the term "flashing" can be misleading or confusing.
> Something that flashes is not bad in itself, everything depends on the 
> ratio of flashes per second. At least not for everyone. While 
> something that flashes to any ratio can be annoying and even disabling 
> for a person with attention deficit is not for everyone. And for 
> something that flashes generate a seizure, certain conditions must be 
> met.
>
> I think we need to be more precise.

Totally agreed.

> Perhaps there could be a general indicator for something that flashes 
> and another for something that can generate seizures in some people.

Flashing at 18 - 24 Hz is what normal movies do. I'm not sure that we care about "flashing" per se, but agree that we want to catch things that are known or strongly suspected to cause a real problem.

cheers

Chaals

> Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
>
> Patrono y Directora General
>
> Fundación Sidar - Acceso Universal
>
> Email:  <mailto:coordina@sidar.org> coordina@sidar.org
>
> Personal:  <mailto:Emmanuelle@sidar.org> Emmanuelle@sidar.org
>
> Web:  <http://sidar.org> http://sidar.org
>
>
> De: a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com] En nombre de Madeleine 
> Rothberg Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de octubre de 2013 0:43
> Para: a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com; public-vocabs@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] accessHazard
>
>
> Yes! Even better.
>
>
> Madeleine
>
>
> On 2013-10-01, at 6:11 PM, "Charles Myers" <charlesm@benetech.org> wrote:
>
> Charles McN had a great idea when he brought this up.  But it may 
> actually be a bit simpler to specify.
>
> Rather than sav
>
>
> *	noFlashing
> *	noMotionSimulation
> *	noSound
>
> in addition to the three properties we have today
>
> *	flashing
> *	motionSimulation
> *	sound
>
>
> we might just want to have a state of "none" (saying that you checked 
> and that there are no hazards that you are aware of).
>
>
> That would change the spec to
>
> *	flashing
> *	motionSimulation
> *	sound
> *	none (or noHazard)
>
> which makes it cleaner.  I think that saying the negative to each of 
> the three properties would be a bit tedious.  And, of course, not 
> having the property means that it has not been checked.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Madeleine Rothberg 
> <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Chuck has updated the issues list to include the discussion of whether 
> accessHazard should state positive or negative information. See that 
> post and my comments, which are also below, at:
> [http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#access
> Hazar d_-_Ok_as_is.2C_or_should_it_be_negated_in_sense.3F]
>
> I believe we need both accessHazard=flashing and 
> accessHazard=noFlashing, etc.. This is because there are three cases we'd like to distinguish:
>
> 1. checked and it's fine
> 2. checked and it is NOT fine
> 3. didn't check
>
> "Didn't check" can be signified by no metadata -- this will be most of 
> the content on the Web. In cases where someone has checked, let's 
> record both positive and negative states.
>
> -Madeleine
>


--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 23:58:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC