W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Automatically testing Web content for flicker

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:27:34 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020607132509.049c62c0@localhost>
To: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

We'll have to take that the WCAG WG.

In the meantime, I heard back from Professor Harding and there is a system 
that checks for flicker.  It's based on his research and produced by 
Cambridge Research Systems. http://www.hardingfpa.co.uk/

Not sure how much it costs, how easy it is to use, or how well it works on 
web content...but I'll contact CRS to find out.

--wendy

At 09:35 AM 6/7/02, Phill Jenkins wrote:


> >>BTW, is this now a WCAG issue?
> >
> >it's always been a WCAG issue.  It's a WCAG 1.0 checkpoint [1] and thus
>was
> >incorporated into WCAG 2.0 [2].  I sent the question to this list since
> >WCAG is trying to figure out methods to test to add to our success
>criteria.
>
>I meant that it is an issue to have this unnecessary checkpoint in WCAG.
>My point, and I think Nick's, was that it should not be in WCAG, and we
>should not be trying to find methods to test to add to the WCAG success
>criteria because it is not a content responsibility.  Flicker is handled by
>the display's __mhz and the browser - so there is no requirement on the
>author.
>
>Please understand that photosensitive epilepsy is a real issue, but it
>doesn't belong in WCAG.
>
>Regards,
>Phill Jenkins
>IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center
>http://www.ibm.com/able

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 13:20:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:41 GMT