W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

2.3 Issue Cleanup

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:50:16 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b201c62183$fc45e7f0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>


1785 AND 1796

1285 says:   Will warnings protect children from seizures

I'm concerned that flash content warnings will be useful mainly to 
adults who already know that they are vulnerable to photosensitive 
seizures. But young children are far more likely to suffer 
photosensitive seizures, and to be unaware of their condition (as may 
be their parents, teachers, and doctors). How will children benefit 
from flash content warnings?


1796  says SC 2.3.1 needs stronger protection than just warning the user

  Perhaps this should be rewritten to require that either (1) the content
doesn't violate either the general flash threshold or the red flash
threshold, or (2) the content is written in such a way that user agents can
avoid presenting it if it violates either the red flash threshold or the
general flash threshold.



We poll the following

- 2.3.2 up to L1


1793 New 2.3 SC requiring Equivalent content at L1 if content violates flash



If we don't move 2.3.2 up to level 1 then we include something at level 1
requiring equivalent content.   











Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:50:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:41 UTC