- 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