- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@wiscmail.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:19:26 +0300
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Well sort of doing research on patterns. What I'm doing is researching the research. But yes - more when I get more. Be a little while but no toooooo long. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:22 AM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: Re: Issue #8: flicker (my action item from WCAG teleconference, June 26, 2003) Importance: High I think there are two issues here. 1. The success criterion says that content "is not designed to flicker or flash...". If "not designed to" is interpreted to mean "does not contain markup, code etc., for the purpose of causing it to flicker", then I can think of no reason why that wouldn't be testable. 2. There is a separate issue regarding patterns etc., that do not amount to flicker but can cause seizures, into which, as I remember, Gregg is hoping to conduct research. This aspect of the problem currently isn't covered by our checkpoint and does raise "testability" concerns. Thus I think the current success criteria are testable as long as we interpret "is not designed to" as suggested. Issue 2 (in the above discussion) would in that case still be open though. Comments?
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 15:20:18 UTC