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

RE: Tech G19

From: Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\) <r.scano@webprofession.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:56:36 +0100
To: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <49c24f15.1c215e0a.74a0.fffff65f@mx.google.com>


-----Original Message-----
Christophe:
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#gen
eral-thresholddef>). 
That should be OK.
The WCAG WG chose not to write failures that would just state the 
inverse of a sucess criterion.

Roberto Scano:
My question was: is really necessary to refer in a note to something that
didn't exist (a failure with "3.5 flashes or more")
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 13:57:14 GMT

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