- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 07:15:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi, I assume from reading this thatn you are focussing on formats, rather than the "technology" the user actually has - browser, assistive technology, etc. Just a couple of comments: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Jason White wrote: >Checkpoint 2.3, same as per 2.2 above: flicker is really a user agent >issue, though it might be possible to provide support in graphic/animation >formats to control it - I don't know. CMN There are two parts to flicker. User agents, including the software and the hardware, need to be designed so that filcker is avoidable. Ther is an aspect relevant to the format - any format that supports a changing visual presentation needs to support timing control - whether for the author, the user, or both. Most formats already do this (animated GIF, MNG, SVG for examples) Jason: >Checkpoint 3.3, requires that the author be able to specify >presentations (as in checkpoint 1.4). CMN Well, it also requires that links are visible to users. For example the link element can be used to create a navigable site which has no inline links (there are some usability experts who prefer this approach), but not all browsers make the functionality available. (The big one that doesn't is Internet Explorer. It could be done with a quick javascript hack that would work in most cases, but it should be done by the user agent following a specification of the format). Jason: >Checkpoint 3.5, doesn't appear to require anything except standard >user interface features, though at level 3 a "selection-from-a-list" >mechanism must be provided. CMN A feedback mechanism is required, along with the opportunity to regenerate content. I believe this is standard in most Web systems used today, but that is not necessarily the case. Cheers Chaals
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 07:15:58 UTC