- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- cc: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Hmmm. The conclusion I would draw is that people should use software that protects them, and that this is important. However, it should be noted that this is something that can be a problem, and there is value in avoiding flicker if it isn't necessary (often, like red-green combinations, it isn't that it was necessary, and in many cases authors are happy to try and change something that affects people if it is easy enough to do). As a web content requirement it should still stand I think, although it might be a different priority level. (Back to the "until user agents..." discussion) Chaals On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Nick Kew wrote: On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Terje Bless wrote: > should be possible even accidentally. Making sure your content does not > contain any such seems emminently suitable for the WCAG, if perhaps a bit > obscure. But is that really helpful on the Web? It could only work if _every_ site is _guaranteed_ to conform; otherwise the epileptic is at risk when visiting an unknown site. Hence my comment that people affected by this should seek to use client software that doesn't expose them to the risk. -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 19:06:13 UTC