- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:44:17 -0400
- To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Also, re. MARQUEE... That's typically used for a series of objects. I'd suggest providing a convenient way to break it into a bullet list. I'd also suggest omitting the H1 H2 ... I've never seen MARQUEE used for that. And adding a note, suggesting CSS styling, after SPAN. Len At 03:52 PM 10/20/99 -0400, you wrote: >I've updated the ERT doc with the latest recommendations on BLINK. The URL >is: >http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/#Technique7.2.A > >Marquee is much the same and is at: >http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/#Technique7.3.A > >Please let me know if it misses some of your concerns. > >I hope that the document is general enough so it does not limit the >implementation. > >Chris > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org> >To: Evaluation & Repair Interest Group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> >Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:22 PM >Subject: Re: BLINK repair mechanisms (calling all CSS gurus!) > > >> I agree with Len's concerns, particularly that we want a general >> statement. I think his proposal works well. >> >> --w >> >> >> >2. I don't think we should be so specific about the user interface. I >> >would want a general statement like >> > >> >"The tool shall by default replace BLINK with STRONG, but give the author >> >the option to override this choice with EM, or any CSS defined style. >The >> >tool shall offer the user an explanation of why CSS BLINK is >undesirable." >> > >> >The difference between this wording and the wording in the minutes >> >(reproduced below) is that the wording in the minutes prescribes a >specific >> >"wizzard" style interface, with prescribed steps in a prescribed order. >> >Read strictly, it would e.g. prevent a tool developer from offering a >> >dialog box which presents all options simultaneously, with the warning >> >explanation next to the choice of CSS blink. >> > >> >We should specify function, not user interface here. If people feel >> >strongly that we've got to be specific, we should at least have a general >> >disclaimer that any other user interface with equivalent functionality is >> >permitted; and this disclaimer should be strongly emphasized (e.g. by >using >> >BLINK <smile> ). >> > >> >Len >> > >> > >> >Here's the wording in the minutes I'm referring to: >> > >> > >Resolved: Repair strategy will consist of the following steps: >> > >1) remove BLINK or replace with STRONG or EM >> > >2) if author chooses "No" when prompted to replace BLINK, issue a >dialog >> > >containing an explanation of accessibility and usability problems posed >by >> > >BLINK >> > >3) if author chooses "Use BLINK Anyway", prompt the user (or >> >automatically) use >> > >CSS to achieve blinking effect so that end user has control over >> > presentation >> > >> >------- >> >Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. >> >Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and >> >Department of Electrical Engineering >> >Temple University >> > >> >Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122 >> >kasday@acm.org >> >(215) 204-2247 (voice) >> >(800) 750-7428 (TTY) > > > ------- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and Department of Electrical Engineering Temple University Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122 kasday@acm.org (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Thursday, 21 October 1999 09:40:56 UTC