- 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