- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:43:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is true, but if they distract the user sufficiently that they cannot actually read the page then they have rendered that page inaccessible to that user. (The image itself, obviously, is accessible to them, just nothing else.) In any event, I think this is a probloem that the technology can and should solve. The question I really think is important is whether it currently DOES or whether the "until user agents" requirement has not been met yet. (The problem is the same for people who are distracted by moving images and for people who have photosensitive epilipsy - they need a mechanism to stop the picture. Charles On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 2:37 PM -0400 2001/7/24, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >I don't think that this image is OK, unless the group feels that the "until >user agents" part of the checkpoint means it is no onger applicable. It moves >at something between 5 and 25 Hz in my viewer, and may preset problems with >concentration or photosensitive epilepsy. I think objections to "problems with concentration" are specious and show a lack of understanding as to how visual communication is supposed to work. Some things are -meant- to be "distracting." It is a -design feature- that animated banners draw your eye. They are -meant- to do that, and it is the intent of the author that they do so. --Kynn -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 20:43:50 UTC