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

2.3 Issue Cleanup - Revisited

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:21:30 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d801c621dc$2a525b80$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
Here is a rework of the previous proposals adding an option that was missed
on last one - and making second recommendation clearer --  more specific. 


Gregg

 

 

 

 


Related  Issues 1785 AND 1796


1785 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.

 

Suggest

We poll the following options

 

1) Change 2.3.1  from 

      2.3.1 When content violates either the general flash threshold
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#general-thresholddef> or the
red <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#red-thresholddef>  flash
threshold, 

     users are warned in a way that allows them to avoid it.

To 

     2.3.1 When content violates either the general flash threshold
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#general-thresholddef> or the
red <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#red-thresholddef>  flash
threshold, 

     users cannot access the content without first seeing and dismissing a
warning.

 

 

2) move 2.3.2 up to L1 and delete current 2.3.1 (which calls for a warning)

 

 

3) No change - keep L1 exactly like it is.

 


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


 

Suggest

 

If we don't move 2.3.2 up to level 1 then we include  at L1

 

2.3.1+   When content violates either the general flash threshold
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#general-thresholddef> or the
red <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#red-thresholddef>  flash
threshold, an equivalent version is available to users at the same URI that
does not violate either threshold. 

  


 
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:21:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT