W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

May 30 telecon highlights

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:47:27 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <003501c20855$e348da00$076fa8c0@laptop600>

HIGHLIGHTS OF TELECON ON 5/30/2002  


 


INTRODUCTORY NOTES


 

Here are Highlights from the telecon today.

 

1) I am working with Ben and the Telconf crew to capture the highlights
for future reference and quick looks by all to the most important things
the group thought to capture so you all can comment.     Occasionally
when an idea came from someone their name will be mentioned near it.
The final text however isn't usually exactly what they said but rather
the wording after discussion.   So if you like it.credit them with the
idea.    If you don't like it.. Blame the committee for either changing
it or endorsing it.

 

By the way.   

We will also put together a "HIGHLIGHTS OF MEETINGS" page so you can
find these all in one place over time.   

 

2) Wendy is also creating a Resources and References page (or some
similar name) that will include links to all the different docs and
links that we looked at or used as part of our discussions for future
reference.  It will group them by topics.  

 

 


TOPIC HIGHLIGHTS OF TELECON ON 5/30/2002  


Recorded by Gregg Van and Ben Caldwell

 

 

 


Regarding FLICKER discussion:


 

1)  We felt that everything about what the author needed to do so that
users could view without seizures needed to be in level 1.    Level 2
might be about things that meant users wouldn't need to have fast
equipment in order to be sure - but they should be able to have
reasonable equip and be safe with level 1.    This isn't the final word
on this but a thought we wanted to be sure to capture.    (another
thought was that there be nothing below level 1)

 

2)  Regarding the testing tool.  Trace said it was going to explore.
Also thought of having a two ended tool (idea coming from the discussion
above).   Two ended tool would be one that tested pages to meet a
certain criterion.  Then also allowed users to test their computers to
see if their computers would safely display pages that met the tools
page test.  (e.g. if screens the met the test  would flicker on their
equipment because it was very slow or something - then they would know
it.)

 

3) Thought maybe the compliance levels might be

LEVEL 1

Success Criteria 1 - content was not designed to flicker (or flash)in
the range of 3 to 49 Hz. 
Success Criteria 2 - (reader's note: we would like to include a second
criteria here which would state that a test that was conducted and the
pages passed.   No test or tool exists yet though.  Looking into how
such a test and / or tool might be designed.)

LEVEL 2

Success Criteria 1 - (tougher test - that would make pages pass with
even slower equip.  Equip might be old or just slow for other reasons)

 

 


GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING ALL CHECKPOINTS


1.      (based on suggestion by Matt May) As a rule, we shouldn't ask
companies to guarantee that something won't happen, only to state that
they did something or that something didn't happen the author tested. 

 

 


Regarding CONTRAST AND COLOR:


1.      (based on suggestion from Cynthia) Suggested that instead of
using ratios or percentages, we define a specific number of points or
equation in RGB that could be used to determine sufficient contrast.
(e.g.  don't say 10 to 1 contrast.  Say contrast must be xx points
apart.  For example " 200 points apart  on a 256 scale"



2.      ?? Is RGB the best format for making specifications? (Wendy took
@@ on this to ask some experts) 

3.      In determining success critieria for this checkpoint, we should
use scales that authors are familiar with and limit discussion of color
theory to display (rather than print) technologies.

 

 

 

 

 


Gregg


------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 

 
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 23:48:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT