- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 14:38:49 +0200
- To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote: >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. Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree. If I understand correctly, photosensitive epilepsy is triggered by specific frequencies of flicker that can be generated by an animated GIF or a Flash file[0], or possibly even dynamic content altered via a javascript. Achieveing a flicker rate of between 5 and 60 Hz (which is what the website suggest as the most dangerous range) should be possible even accidentally. Making sure your content does not contain any such seems emminently suitable for the WCAG, if perhaps a bit obscure. But I may be mistaken? Whether it makes sense to attempt to _test_ for this is a different matter. [0] - Based on the fact that certain video games and tv programmes that for one reason or another (showing strobe lights, say) cause the screen to flicker in certain patterns are claimed to induce epileptic attacks. -- "Python 2.0 beta 1 is now available from BeOpen PythonLabs. There is a long list of new features since Python 1.6, released earlier today. We don't plan on any new releases in the next 24 hours." - From Python 2.0b1 Announcement
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2002 10:32:55 UTC