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

Re: Eating one's own dog food

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 07:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
cc: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108230754200.18090-100000@tux.w3.org>
This sort of demonstrates why I think it is good to have explicit rationales,
and probably to have them in the guidelines document. (I used to be against
having them in the Guidelines documents, preferring to move as much as
possible to the techniques to keep the "normative reference" short for easier

I don't think that (except for flicker) we are concerned about animations
having any effect on people with photo-sensitive epilepsy. I was under the
impression that animations can have a very distracting effect for people with
disabilities that affect their attention to something, and that it was also
an "until user agents" type problem for some screen-reading software (for
example Tiflowin, which is a spanish screen reader, apparently froze
completely if there was an animation).



On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Trains/Trains.html - do not visit unless you
  enjoy animations, trains, or both ... I'm not sure of my point here, except
  that perhaps we are a bit "overprotective" on the photo-epilepsy issue as
  it relates to animation (but not flicker).

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 07:58:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC