W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:46:01 +0200
Message-ID: <013301c0a65a$16270fa0$6497003e@seeman>
To: "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Yup, that would do it, It is fine from my perspective, but it may be
stronger then strictly necessary. For example a mouse over button effect,
may be OK, but could be considered animation.

How about:

Don't use animation that can disrupt the user's concentration and ability
perform tasks, unless you  specifically need to do this.

( I also changed "want" to "need". Lets rule out advertisers who consider
people with ADD as easy pray for impulsive spending. :(  )

Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>; WAI <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original
Message-----


>At 1:00 PM +0200 3/6/01, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>>--Hi, I have started looking through the minutes, and I would like to
>>explain the intent of 2.2.
>>>
>>People have complain/ commented to me that they have trouble reading and
>>concentrating on a site were there are animations and distractions. Theses
>>comments are of course form people with ADD/ADHD. The problem
>>is>concentrating or following and not interaction.
>>  The wording has been carefully chosen - "minimize" and not "do not use"
so
>>that you can have alert boxes or other necessary distractions.
>
>But the wording is not precise enough -- "minimize" means nothing as
>a term.  There is no metric -- "minimize" is at best a relative term,
>and at worst a verb which means "continually reduce" i.e. to nothing.
>
>The gist of the face-to-face discussion was that instead of saying
>"minimize" -- which is unmeasurable and not easy to understand what is
>required -- we'd rather turn the checkpoint on its head and make it a
>positive.  Say "use animation for <x> and <y>", defining when it's
>appropriate, rather than saying either "use it when you like but feel
>guilty" or "never use it", which are the only two logical interpretations
>of "minimize."
>
>>However imagine an ADHD high school student trying to research a complex
>>topic when there are ants crawling across the screen. Every time the ants
>>come in his field of vision, he will forget what he is doing and have to
>>start again. The designer may think that this will help make the site
appeal
>>to teenagers. But in reality many students will have to take medication
>>before using it. An extreme example, but many animations have a similar
>>effect.
>
>How do you "minimize" the above?  Is it by "reducing the number of
>ants"?  Is one crawling ant acceptable -- because the effect has been
>"minimized" -- but 2 or more crawling ants are not?  Clearly in the
>example above you want to say "do not use"!  Thus clearer language
>is necessary.
>
>The intent is to say:
>
>      Use animation when it is necessary to disrupt the end user's
>      ability perform her tasks.  Don't use animation unless you
>      specifically want to do this.
>
>Do you agree with the above sentiment?  The wording is not the final
>form of the proposal, of course.
>
>--Kynn
>
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
>http://www.kynn.com/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 11:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT