Re: Where we stand on Animations SC #18

> That’s a good point, I shouldn’t have used that as an example. We want to ignore the size/timing aspects we had in the term ‘significant’ when at AAA.
[Steve] So scrolling marquees  should be in or out of scope?

In, mostly for simplicity rather than thinking a text-marque would be a trigger. Differentiating a small text-marque from a larger carousel is getting back into ‘significant’ territory and too much complexity.


>  [Steve] I wasn’t trying to draw a distinction between “motion” and “movement” since they are synonyms, just that animation implies motion so “motion animation” doesn’t create a subset in my mind.

It does reduce the scope from all animation as it excludes: Colour changes, blurring (without movement), blinking and value-updates (e.g. changing one word to another). That’s all I can think of off hand, there are probably others.


[Steve] Yep, I agree. Skimming the GitHub thread, it sounds like there’s only evidence to always exclude color or blinking as not a problem, and to include parallax as nearly always a problem, correct?  I think just make a choice to create the subset by being inclusive or exclusive, and at AAA probably the latter?

If you read through the (excellent) article here: https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/


You’ll see that including all of those variations on motion will get very wordy. If you try to exclude certain things that will get somewhat wordy with at least 4 things to exclude.

Can you live with ‘motion’?

The simple version doesn’t need to mention animation, but the title would include that for clarity:
“Animation from interactions: For non-essential motion triggered by a user action, there is a mechanism to prevent the motion and still perform the action. Level AAA”

Cheers,

-Alastair