- From: Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\) <r.scano@webprofession.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:56:36 +0100
- To: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- Christophe: Could you explain where the mistake is? The note does not refer to a (non-existing) technique but just says "failure threshold" (general flash and red flash thresholds are defined at <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure-does-not-violate.html#gen eral-thresholddef>). That should be OK. The WCAG WG chose not to write failures that would just state the inverse of a sucess criterion. Roberto Scano: My question was: is really necessary to refer in a note to something that didn't exist (a failure with "3.5 flashes or more")
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 13:57:14 UTC