W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: motionless?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:07:49 -0500
Message-ID: <00f501c07670$dde71ea0$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "User Agent Working group list" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Good Point al.  Othere things that might fit: still comes to mind.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>; "User Agent Working group
list" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Sent: January 04, 2001 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: motionless?


At 10:24 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, David Poehlman wrote:
>below are two checkpoints with the word motionless in them. I know
>I've seen them before but it occurred to me that blinking is not
>actually motion and that for both, perhaps the word static would be
>better than motionless?
>
> 3.3 Allow the user to configure the user agent to render animated
>or
> blinking text as motionless text. [Priority 1]
> Content type labels: VisualText.
> Techniques for checkpoint 3.3
>
> 3.4 Allow the user to configure the user agent to render blinking
> images as motionless images. [Priority 1]
> Content type labels: Color, Animation.
> Techniques for checkpoint 3.4
>

AG::

Good point.  On the other hand, 'static' risks confusion with issues
of
dynamic
content.

Other terms that might work here:  unchanging, frozen, unblinking, "an
unchanging display."

Al

>Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
>touching the internet
><mailto:poehlman1@home.com>mailto:poehlman1@home.com
>voice: 301.949.7599
>---end sig---
>
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 12:07:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT