Re: Guideline 2.2 Issue Summary

Hi Christophe,

On 10/10/05, Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> Issue 1645
> [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1645]
> L3 SC3:
> "it would be a large burden for servers to maintain state of each session
> indefinitely".

It would be a huge burden for the server to maintain all session
variables, and also impossible to guarantee as the server could
restart if it runs out of memory, losing all session data. It would be
less of a burden if the session data was stored on the user's computer
using cookies.

> [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1550]
> "2.2 L2 SC1:Content does not blink for more than 3 seconds ..."
> Are there international health and safety standards for blinks (as in 2.3)?
> 3 seconds seems a very long time to be looking at maybe 10 blinks that
> could cause a convulsion or altered state.  Could that be reduced to two
> seconds?

I think this success criterion is aimed at people who are likely to be
distracted by blinking content. I'm preparing the guide document for
this criterion, and will put a note referring to guideline 2.3 for
photosensitivity.

> Issue 1643
> [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1643]
> Reviewer writes:
> 'Change "any" to "all" because use of "any" implies that the user can be
> required to turn off each blinking item independently. While that level of
> control can be useful for many users, it would be impractical for users who
> need to stop large number of blinking elements, especially if new ones might
> continually start blinking over time.'
>
> The addition of "a method is available to stop any blinking content in the
> delivery unit" in the latest draft was meant ensure that all blinking
> content in a delivery unit could be turned off at once. Any objections to
> the proposed change?

Authors who provide content that blinks presumably do so because they
want to draw the visitor's attention to that content. In a large
delivery unit with blinking content at the start and end, with enough
content between that they could not be seen simultaneously, the
desired effect will be lost. I intensely dislike blinking content, but
if we accept this suggestion, would it not be deemed as too
restrictive? What about suggesting authors provide a mechanism to stop
all blinking content in the optional techniques (advisory) section of
the guide document?

I would have reviewed more, but I ran out of lunch break.

Best regards,

Gez

--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com

Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 12:00:42 UTC