W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2008

more distractions

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 06:48:56 -0700
Message-ID: <d0a60292618242b6a005db43d1ed98fd.love26@gorge.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
CC: chisholm.wendy@gmail.com

In a 2001 WCAG WG teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/03/22-minutes.html the fate of 
addressing distraction per se was sort of sealed. Here's the pertinent excerpt from the discussion:

WC [Wendy Chisholm] I think distraction is a subset of many of the other checkpoints. For example, 
color could be distracting, the author must separate content from presentation so the user can use 
the user agent to make changes. In cases of motion, this is covered by giving users control of 
mechanisms that change or move.

JW [Jason White] Therefore, we could delete this and move forward with what wendy has proposed. Tie 
these to UA in some way. Are there cases of distraction that would not be covered. Perhaps cover 
individually rather than a general checkpoint about distraction.

GV ] Want to go back to my previous comment, we should not prohibit distractions, if movement etc. 
is what you are talking about, you should be able to control. It is a problem for someone, 
everything will be a problem for someone. There is a function to attracting attention.

JW instead of specific checkpoint, deal with it piecemeal. a distraction is one consequence of a 
range of different phenomena, therefore deal with each individually rather than the consequence of 
it in one place.

GV Say what to do not don't do it. We will have to document since it will come up again.

Action WC: delete 2.2 deal with distractions piecemeal (since distraction is a consequence of a 
range of phenomena, deal with each individually rather than the consequence of it in one place.)

Love.
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2008 13:49:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:57 UTC