- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:46 +0000
- To: Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <josh@interaccess.ie>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
So call it something like ‘motion animations’? And add a line saying that it excludes the others. -Alastair On 16/01/2018, 10:30, "Joshue O Connor - InterAccess" <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote: 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 11:09:28 UTC