W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Issue #8: flicker (my action item from WCAG teleconference, June 26, 2003)

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@wiscmail.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:19:26 +0300
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <004201c33ce1$0b266680$de24940a@USD320002X>

Well sort of doing research on patterns.   What I'm doing is researching the
research.   
But yes - more when I get more.   Be a little while but no toooooo long. 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:22 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: Issue #8: flicker (my action item from WCAG teleconference,
June 26, 2003)
Importance: High


I think there are two issues here.

1. The success criterion says that content "is not designed to flicker
   or flash...". If "not designed to" is interpreted to mean "does not
   contain markup, code etc., for the purpose of causing it to
   flicker", then I can think of no reason why that wouldn't be
   testable.

2. There is a separate issue regarding patterns etc., that do not
   amount to flicker but can cause seizures, into which, as I
   remember, Gregg is hoping to conduct research. This aspect of the
   problem currently isn't covered by our checkpoint and does raise
   "testability" concerns.

Thus I think the current success criteria are testable as long as we
interpret "is not designed to" as suggested. Issue 2 (in the above
discussion) would in that case still be open though.

Comments?
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 15:20:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT