W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Tech G19

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:43:15 +0100
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090319143731.03200170@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Roberto,

At 14:04 19/03/2009, Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:
>Hi all, i think there is a mistake here:
>
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G19
>
>
>Note 1 said:
>
>---
>Note 1: This technique is stricter than the Level 1 Success Criteria but is
>easier to test and can be used to meet the Level 1 Success Criteria because
>all failure thresholds in the Level 1 Success Criteria involve flashing 3.5
>flashes or more within one second. (...)
>---
>
>But this Is a level 1 success criteria and i don't find any failure for the
>cited 3.5 flashes:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure-does-not-violate.html

Could you explain where the mistake is? The note does not refer to a 
(non-existing) technique but just says "failure threshold" (general 
flash and red flash thresholds are defined at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure-does-not-violate.html#general-thresholddef>). 
That should be OK.
The WCAG WG chose not to write failures that would just state the 
inverse of a sucess criterion.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 13:44:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:56 GMT