W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Proposed clarification to checkpoints 3.3, 3.5, 3.6

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:57:41 -0400
Message-ID: <39463DD5.D36E69DB@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> Ian,
> 1. We already have pause in another checkpoint, as you pointed out so we do
> not need a checkpoint just for pause.  So is your proposal to really delete
> the checkpoint since it is already covered somewhere else, if what you say
> is true I don't think it is a noteworthy special case.

I agree that the requirement of freezing video and animation is
covered in another checkpoint. However, the slight difference is that
"pause" suggests the ability to "restart" and the requirements of
checkpoints 3.3., 3.5, and 3.6 would simply be to stop, not to turn
back on.
 
> 2. We have turn on and off other multi-media objects and video was in there
> for potential:
> a. Flicker problems (freezing would solve)
> b. Distractions for people with cognitive disabilities (freezing does not
> resolve, this is the reason to turn off images)

Right, so the question is, does one need to turn off *any* visual
information?
This can be done with style sheets.

> c. It could be confusing to some types of assistive technologies to have
> the video player running (we would need to discuss this with AT developers
> to get their view on the subject and this would require probably adding
> candidate recommendation to the process since our goal of CR was to get AT
> developer input).

I suspect that freezing would address this one.
 
> 3.  I am not sure why this is even an issue.  I don't remember it coming up
> in any of the reviewers comments, which is what we are responding to right
> now.
> 
> My vote is to leave it the same unless there is some compelling evidence to
> change it.

The reason that I propose to change it is that the minimal requirement
was not clear. Does this mean "don't render" or just "freeze". Thus,
in an attempt to identify the minimal requirement (which did come
up during PR review), I proposed to narrow the focus of the checkpoint.

The question remains: did the WG mean these checkpoints to be
about "not rendering at all"?

 - Ian


> At 10:49 AM 6/12/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >Jon Gunderson wrote:
> > >
> > > Ian,
> > > For some types of cognitive disabilities, people with visual impairments
> > > and some types of screen reder and magnification software my
> > > understanding  was that it was important to turn off the
> > > rendering or not allow the rendering of video.
> > > Freeze may work for many people, but may not work for
> > > all people.  What is the advantage of freezing a frame?
> >
> >It sounds like there are a couple of requirements:
> >1) Stop things from moving
> >2) Stop things from being too busy (e.g., don't open
> >    too many viewports).
> >
> >But is "don't render content" a requirement? If so, then
> >why (still) video content and not graphically rendered
> >text? Or graphics? I don't think we have a requirement
> >for "make this page less busy" - the closest we get is
> >"don't open too many viewports".
> >
> >So what are the accessibility requirements surrounding
> >video and animation that freezing does not address?
> >
> >  - Ian
> >
> > > At 10:33 PM 6/9/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >Please consider the following editorial clarification to
> > > >checkpoints 3.3, 3.5, and 3.6 (of the 7 May draft [1]):
> > > >
> > > >  3.3 Allow the user to turn on and off rendering of video.
> > > >      [Priority 1]
> > > >
> > > >  3.5 Allow the user to turn on and off animated or
> > > >      blinking text. [Priority 1]
> > > >
> > > >  3.6 Allow the user to turn on and off animations and
> > > >      blinking images. [Priority 1]
> > > >
> > > >After discussion with Charles and Eric Hansen about
> > > >these checkpoints, we concluded that the requirement
> > > >was to "freeze" video and animations. The term
> > > >"turn on and off" may be construed to mean "do not
> > > >render at all" but I don't believe that is the requirement
> > > >expressed by these checkpoints. The accessibility problem
> > > >in these cases (unless I am mistaken) arises from the
> > > >distraction of the motion, not the mere rendering of
> > > >the visual information. We do have a P2 checkpoint
> > > >about turning off the rendering of images (checkpoint 3.9).
> > > >Therefore, I propose using the term "freeze" instead
> > > >of "turn on and off" for these three checkpoints.
> > > >
> > > >  - Ian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 09:57:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT