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

Re: Automatically testing Web content for flicker

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206101854100.15332-100000@tux.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..."


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:33 UTC