W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > October 1999

Re: BLINK repair mechanisms (calling all CSS gurus!)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:25:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991020162331.00b566f0@localhost>
To: "Evaluation & Repair Interest Group" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
I don't think headers ought to be considered in the list of suggested 
replacements - that could really mess up the structure.  I also think that 
the text-decoration: blink should be added to the list.
--w

At 03:52 PM 10/20/99 , Chris Ridpath wrote:
>I've updated the ERT doc with the latest recommendations on BLINK. The URL
>is:
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/#Technique7.2.A
>
>Marquee is much the same and is at:
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/#Technique7.3.A
>
>Please let me know if it misses some of your concerns.
>
>I hope that the document is general enough so it does not limit the
>implementation.
>
>Chris
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
>To: Evaluation & Repair Interest Group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:22 PM
>Subject: Re: BLINK repair mechanisms (calling all CSS gurus!)
>
>
> > I agree with Len's concerns, particularly that we want a general
> > statement.  I think his proposal works well.
> >
> > --w
> >
> >
> > >2. I don't think we should be so specific about the user interface.  I
> > >would want a general statement like
> > >
> > >"The tool shall by default replace BLINK with STRONG, but give the author
> > >the option to override this choice with EM, or any CSS defined style.
>The
> > >tool shall offer the user an explanation of why CSS BLINK is
>undesirable."
> > >
> > >The difference between this wording and the wording in the minutes
> > >(reproduced below) is that the wording in the minutes prescribes a
>specific
> > >"wizzard" style interface, with prescribed steps in a prescribed order.
> > >Read strictly, it would e.g. prevent a tool developer from offering a
> > >dialog box which presents all options simultaneously, with the warning
> > >explanation next to the choice of CSS blink.
> > >
> > >We should specify function, not user interface here.  If people feel
> > >strongly that we've got to be specific, we should at least have a general
> > >disclaimer that any other user interface with equivalent functionality is
> > >permitted; and this disclaimer should be strongly emphasized (e.g. by
>using
> > >BLINK <smile> ).
> > >
> > >Len
> > >
> > >
> > >Here's the wording in the minutes I'm referring to:
> > >
> > > >Resolved: Repair strategy will consist of the following steps:
> > > >1) remove BLINK or replace with STRONG or EM
> > > >2) if author chooses "No" when prompted to replace BLINK, issue a
>dialog
> > > >containing an explanation of accessibility and usability problems posed
>by
> > > >BLINK
> > > >3) if author chooses "Use BLINK Anyway", prompt the user (or
> > >automatically) use
> > > >CSS to achieve blinking effect so that end user has control over
> > > presentation
> > >
> > >-------
> > >Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
> > >Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
> > >Department of Electrical Engineering
> > >Temple University
> > >
> > >Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122
> > >kasday@acm.org
> > >(215) 204-2247 (voice)
> > >(800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 16:24:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:29 UTC