W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

Guideline 2.3 - Issue summary and proposal

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:27:10 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000144709560@spamarrest.com>
PROPOSAL

 

To change the guideline 2.3 to the following - closing most bugs as
described below

 

 


Guideline 2.3 Allow users to avoid content that could cause photosensitive
epileptic seizures.


Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3


1.	Content that violates International Health and Safety Standards for
General Flash or Red Flash is
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#markedpriordef#markedpriordef> marked in
way that the user can avoid its appearance. [I] 


Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3 


1.	Content does not violate International Health and Safety Standards
for General Flash or Red Flash. [V] 


Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3 


1.	Content does not violate International Health and Safety Standards
for Pattern. [V] 
2.	Content that violates International Health and Safety Standards for
General Flash or Red Flash when screen is magnified 32 times is
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#markedpriordef#markedpriordef> marked in
way that the user can avoid its appearance [I] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------

ISSUE 804   Users should be able to avoid seeing dangerous flashing content

SUMMARY:  "not only should the content be marked, there should be a way for
the user to avoid seeing it. Proposed

rewording: "Content that violates General Flash Threshold or Red Flash
Threshold is identified prior to its appearance in a way that allows the
user to suppress its appearance."

RECOMMENDATION:  

1. Change the guideline from  "marked in way that the user can access prior
to its appearance."  To   "marked in way that the user can avoid its
appearance."

2. CLOSE item

 

----------

ISSUE 805   Move definitions to glossary 
SUMMARY:  Level 1, 2, and 3 success critera - Threshold definitions should
be moved to the glossary terms and the success criteria should link to the
glossary.

RECOMMENDATION:

1)       Move definitions of conformance to Test Tool Kit

2)       Close item


----------

ISSUE 865  WCAG should reference television and motion-picture industry

SUMMARY: refer to known information from the television and motion picture
industry.  Guidelines that govern accessibility for television can
--generally--  very well be applied to the web.

COMMENT:  the current guidelines are already taken from this industry - and
modified to the closer viewing range of computer screen. 

RECOMMENDATION:  

1)      That we defer even further to new international  standards for this
that are developing.

2)      Close this item

 

----------

ISSUE    881  Flicker should be addressed under principle 1

SUMMARY:   It seems that there may be an organizational problem. Providing
strong advice on avoiding content that may induce a seizure is essential.
Maybe this issue should be addressed under "principle I." The blinking
object 

issue is not an operable control issue except for the control to skip or
stop  the blinking. Several webpage trainings are now saying that you should
not use  blinking or scrolling text. Maybe WAI should bite the bullet and
advice against the use of blinking objects.

COMMENT:     

1)      the blinking object prohibition is for distraction-it is not a
threat to people with epilepsy.   So it is not related to this item. 

2)      Guideline 1 has to do with ability to perceive, and that is not the
problem.  It is avoiding something that they do perceive but that prevents
them from operating the content.  (also prevents viewing.. But guideline 2
seems a better home) 

RECOMMENDATION:

1)      we figure out where blinking objects belong and address that there.
We currently don't have a guideline to cover this that I can find.  

2)      Open a new bug to address blinking text if we don't find a home for
it

3)      Leave this guideline where it is

4)      Close this Bug

 

----------

ISSUE   1045   Questions and comments on the new approach for PSE

SUMMARY:     

GL2.3 Content that violates General Flash Threshhold or Red Flash Threshhold
--

These are new concepts. should they rather be in the Glossary as well?

"Editorial Note:  A free tool . available by the second quarter of 2004" is
it?

I find the above far too technical, and not obviously related to Who
Benefits

from Guideline 2.3  

COMMENT:    Tool is essentially done but not released until we finish
testing.  Ran short of funds but are working on it.  

Suggest we actually move the technical part out and into testing tool kit. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1)      remove technical details

2)      That we defer to new international  standards for this that are
developing.

3)      Close this item

 

----------

ISSUE  1094     Thresholds should be more clearly stated.  

 RECOMMENDATION:

1)      remove technical details

2)      That we defer to new international  standards for this that are
developing.

3)      Close this item

 

 

----------

ISSUE  1167    Is definition of flash valid when a low-vision user uses ...


SUMMARY:    Question is if this definition holds if screen is magnified.

COMMENT:    Answer is no.  There is no way for the author to know if the
user is magnifying the content - and that will change the result. Result is
also changed if the user uses a very large monitor or uses one with
unusually bright screen.   Also not predictable with close viewing.    These
conditions are not predictable.    Perhaps we could have a level three
criteria that says that there is notification of any portion of screen that
violates flash..

OR we could defer to international standards on this. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1)      add a level three that talks about notification of any portion of
screen that violates flashing. 

2)      Close this item

 

 

----------

ISSUE   1212   combining Threshold guidance with level3 SC is confusing  

RECOMMENDATION:

1)      remove technical details

2)      That we defer to new international standards for this that are
developing.

3)      Close this item

 

 

----------

ISSUE   1213 restrictions on "free tool"?         

SUMMARY:   does "free tool" mean it will be free to any vendor who wants to
include it in a product they sell? 

COMMENT:     No. it means it is free to anyone who wants to use it to
analyze content that is not COMMERCIAL games or entertainment.  Those are
restrictions on the tool.  Specifically it currently reads

"This tool is provided free of charge by the Trace Center for evaluation of
web and computer software to test for material considered provocative to
photosensitive individuals.  This tool may be used freely for these
purposes. This tool may NOT be used to assess material commercially produced
for the television broadcast, film, or home entertainment or gaming
industries.  Individuals interested in a tool for testing these applications
should contact Cambridge Research Systems at www.crsltd.com
<http://www.crsltd.com/> . "  

RECOMMENDATION:

1)      remove technical details

2)      That we defer to new international standards for this that are
developing.

3)      Close this item

 

----------

ISSUE   1226  Issue Summary for guideline 2.3 (flicker)  

SUMMARY:    Action items from October 2004 face to face to complete issue
summaries for various categories of open issues related to WCAG 2.0

RECOMMENDATION:

1)  DONE - Close this Item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>  

 

 
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 13:27:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT