Re: Crawling ants?

I am confused.
We could cut the guideline down to one sentence
"Repeat after me: "device independence user-controllable"."
That would be true for text alternatives, true for standardization, true for
transform gracefully.

We specify these things, and with good reason. Repeat after me:
"user-controllable". is true but we need to specify what aspects of a page
can cause problems and hence may need to be controlled.
Animations are one of these.
However with ADD (as I explained in my last email. They will find it hard to
control once the distraction is in effect.
So maybe hear is the one place were "device independence and user control"
does not cover all.
Now if we could have a "distractibility " attribute added to all object and
image tags - Feel free to ask PF.
Yours,
Lisa



-----Original Message-----
From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Crawling ants?


>At 03:42 PM 3/6/01 +0100, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>The example in the current 2.0 draft, that says "you may want to provide a
>>banner-free version of the page", is hopelessly naive
>
>Of course. That is not the function of the author, but of the user.
>
>So long as the user isn't somehow prevented from providing for herself such
>a version, there should be no problem. The user's browser should have a
>"don't bother me, I'm trying to concentrate" button which can, while
>providing "banner liberation", still allow "the sky is falling" messages to
>get through.
>
>I think what I'm saying is that this (recommending *specifics* of
>presentation) isn't the business of WCAG. Instead of "don't divert
>attention" we must (rather convolutedly) say "don't preclude removal of
>attention-diverting elements" - and that in techniques, not checkpoints.
>
>--
>Love.
>                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 13:46:32 UTC