- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:43:15 +0100
- 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 UTC