- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:52:24 -0800
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:49 PM 3/12/01 +0100, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>-desired- animation and -undesired- animation
One of the most familiar examples is the "blinking cursor". One event is
both attraction/distraction. "Stop saying numbers, I'm trying to count over
here!" or a bunch of other psychophysical "attention" situations.
I'm glad I don't have the action item to try to explain to authors why
they're discouraged from making their stuff "attractive" simply because
that very fact might make it unavoidably distracting to certain members of
the audience.
The problem I have is being able to identify what *might* prove distracting
(to a "clinical" degree) to some (few?). "I just can't stand it when I see
the word "obliterate"- it reminds me of genocide."
I hope this isn't a rat-hole. The part about synchronicity-induced seizures
is one thing but "distractions" - may be beyond testing for and hence
require some AT solution. There are few formal markup elements that qualify
so most of this is going to be part of a script of some kind and "crawling
ants" is but the tip of an iceberg. If we can't objectify the target beyond
"distracting" I fear we're lost.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 11:53:30 UTC