- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:50:16 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00b201c62183$fc45e7f0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
1785 AND 1796 1285 says: Will warnings protect children from seizures I'm concerned that flash content warnings will be useful mainly to adults who already know that they are vulnerable to photosensitive seizures. But young children are far more likely to suffer photosensitive seizures, and to be unaware of their condition (as may be their parents, teachers, and doctors). How will children benefit from flash content warnings? 1796 says SC 2.3.1 needs stronger protection than just warning the user Perhaps this should be rewritten to require that either (1) the content doesn't violate either the general flash threshold or the red flash threshold, or (2) the content is written in such a way that user agents can avoid presenting it if it violates either the red flash threshold or the general flash threshold. Suggest We poll the following - 2.3.2 up to L1 1793 New 2.3 SC requiring Equivalent content at L1 if content violates flash thresholds Suggest If we don't move 2.3.2 up to level 1 then we include something at level 1 requiring equivalent content. Suggest Suggest
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:50:32 UTC