Re[2]: Response to issue 697 on 2.2.9 Animation from Interactions

My own preference is for a more narrow focussed definition that makes 
the SC effective when covering the use cases it was designed for.

Thanks

Josh

------ Original Message ------
From: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>; "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" 
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: 16/01/2018 10:16:04
Subject: Re: Response to issue 697 on 2.2.9 Animation from Interactions

>We started with motion & scaling animations, that got changed to the 
>general animations (intentionally, to cover more aspects):
>https://www.w3.org/2017/12/21-ag-minutes.html#item05
>
>Accepted Jan 3rd:
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JanMar/0029.html
>
>I’d be happy emphasising motion-type animations in the definition 
>without excluding others, but it seems the choice is either:
>- Undo the previous decision, or
>- Widen the explicit scope of the definition.
>
>-Alastair
>
>
>On 16/01/2018, 08:06, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
>wrote:
>
>    In that case:
>
>    -1 this definition only mentions movement/size, whereas animation as 
>a
>    concept (particularly in web design/development) cover a wide range 
>of
>    changes (including "color animation", "opacity animation", etc). 
>Either
>    the definition needs to make it clear that it's taking a subset and 
>only
>    considering movement/size, OR the definition needs to encompass all
>    forms of animation and the SC needs to then be scoped to only cover
>    "motion animation" or similar.
>
>    P
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:30:30 UTC