- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:27:34 -0400
- To: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
We'll have to take that the WCAG WG. In the meantime, I heard back from Professor Harding and there is a system that checks for flicker. It's based on his research and produced by Cambridge Research Systems. http://www.hardingfpa.co.uk/ Not sure how much it costs, how easy it is to use, or how well it works on web content...but I'll contact CRS to find out. --wendy At 09:35 AM 6/7/02, Phill Jenkins wrote: > >>BTW, is this now a WCAG issue? > > > >it's always been a WCAG issue. It's a WCAG 1.0 checkpoint [1] and thus >was > >incorporated into WCAG 2.0 [2]. I sent the question to this list since > >WCAG is trying to figure out methods to test to add to our success >criteria. > >I meant that it is an issue to have this unnecessary checkpoint in WCAG. >My point, and I think Nick's, was that it should not be in WCAG, and we >should not be trying to find methods to test to add to the WCAG success >criteria because it is not a content responsibility. Flicker is handled by >the display's __mhz and the browser - so there is no requirement on the >author. > >Please understand that photosensitive epilepsy is a real issue, but it >doesn't belong in WCAG. > >Regards, >Phill Jenkins >IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center >http://www.ibm.com/able -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative seattle, wa usa /--
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 13:20:57 UTC