- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:27:10 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <auto-000144709560@spamarrest.com>
PROPOSAL To change the guideline 2.3 to the following - closing most bugs as described below Guideline 2.3 Allow users to avoid content that could cause photosensitive epileptic seizures. Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3 1. Content that violates International Health and Safety Standards for General Flash or Red Flash is <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#markedpriordef#markedpriordef> marked in way that the user can avoid its appearance. [I] Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3 1. Content does not violate International Health and Safety Standards for General Flash or Red Flash. [V] Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3 1. Content does not violate International Health and Safety Standards for Pattern. [V] 2. Content that violates International Health and Safety Standards for General Flash or Red Flash when screen is magnified 32 times is <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#markedpriordef#markedpriordef> marked in way that the user can avoid its appearance [I] --------- ISSUE 804 Users should be able to avoid seeing dangerous flashing content SUMMARY: "not only should the content be marked, there should be a way for the user to avoid seeing it. Proposed rewording: "Content that violates General Flash Threshold or Red Flash Threshold is identified prior to its appearance in a way that allows the user to suppress its appearance." RECOMMENDATION: 1. Change the guideline from "marked in way that the user can access prior to its appearance." To "marked in way that the user can avoid its appearance." 2. CLOSE item ---------- ISSUE 805 Move definitions to glossary SUMMARY: Level 1, 2, and 3 success critera - Threshold definitions should be moved to the glossary terms and the success criteria should link to the glossary. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Move definitions of conformance to Test Tool Kit 2) Close item ---------- ISSUE 865 WCAG should reference television and motion-picture industry SUMMARY: refer to known information from the television and motion picture industry. Guidelines that govern accessibility for television can --generally-- very well be applied to the web. COMMENT: the current guidelines are already taken from this industry - and modified to the closer viewing range of computer screen. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That we defer even further to new international standards for this that are developing. 2) Close this item ---------- ISSUE 881 Flicker should be addressed under principle 1 SUMMARY: It seems that there may be an organizational problem. Providing strong advice on avoiding content that may induce a seizure is essential. Maybe this issue should be addressed under "principle I." The blinking object issue is not an operable control issue except for the control to skip or stop the blinking. Several webpage trainings are now saying that you should not use blinking or scrolling text. Maybe WAI should bite the bullet and advice against the use of blinking objects. COMMENT: 1) the blinking object prohibition is for distraction-it is not a threat to people with epilepsy. So it is not related to this item. 2) Guideline 1 has to do with ability to perceive, and that is not the problem. It is avoiding something that they do perceive but that prevents them from operating the content. (also prevents viewing.. But guideline 2 seems a better home) RECOMMENDATION: 1) we figure out where blinking objects belong and address that there. We currently don't have a guideline to cover this that I can find. 2) Open a new bug to address blinking text if we don't find a home for it 3) Leave this guideline where it is 4) Close this Bug ---------- ISSUE 1045 Questions and comments on the new approach for PSE SUMMARY: GL2.3 Content that violates General Flash Threshhold or Red Flash Threshhold -- These are new concepts. should they rather be in the Glossary as well? "Editorial Note: A free tool . available by the second quarter of 2004" is it? I find the above far too technical, and not obviously related to Who Benefits from Guideline 2.3 COMMENT: Tool is essentially done but not released until we finish testing. Ran short of funds but are working on it. Suggest we actually move the technical part out and into testing tool kit. RECOMMENDATION: 1) remove technical details 2) That we defer to new international standards for this that are developing. 3) Close this item ---------- ISSUE 1094 Thresholds should be more clearly stated. RECOMMENDATION: 1) remove technical details 2) That we defer to new international standards for this that are developing. 3) Close this item ---------- ISSUE 1167 Is definition of flash valid when a low-vision user uses ... SUMMARY: Question is if this definition holds if screen is magnified. COMMENT: Answer is no. There is no way for the author to know if the user is magnifying the content - and that will change the result. Result is also changed if the user uses a very large monitor or uses one with unusually bright screen. Also not predictable with close viewing. These conditions are not predictable. Perhaps we could have a level three criteria that says that there is notification of any portion of screen that violates flash.. OR we could defer to international standards on this. RECOMMENDATION: 1) add a level three that talks about notification of any portion of screen that violates flashing. 2) Close this item ---------- ISSUE 1212 combining Threshold guidance with level3 SC is confusing RECOMMENDATION: 1) remove technical details 2) That we defer to new international standards for this that are developing. 3) Close this item ---------- ISSUE 1213 restrictions on "free tool"? SUMMARY: does "free tool" mean it will be free to any vendor who wants to include it in a product they sell? COMMENT: No. it means it is free to anyone who wants to use it to analyze content that is not COMMERCIAL games or entertainment. Those are restrictions on the tool. Specifically it currently reads "This tool is provided free of charge by the Trace Center for evaluation of web and computer software to test for material considered provocative to photosensitive individuals. This tool may be used freely for these purposes. This tool may NOT be used to assess material commercially produced for the television broadcast, film, or home entertainment or gaming industries. Individuals interested in a tool for testing these applications should contact Cambridge Research Systems at www.crsltd.com <http://www.crsltd.com/> . " RECOMMENDATION: 1) remove technical details 2) That we defer to new international standards for this that are developing. 3) Close this item ---------- ISSUE 1226 Issue Summary for guideline 2.3 (flicker) SUMMARY: Action items from October 2004 face to face to complete issue summaries for various categories of open issues related to WCAG 2.0 RECOMMENDATION: 1) DONE - Close this Item. Gregg ------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/ <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 13:27:29 UTC