Re: Proposal for: Animation from Interactions

> "A mechanism is available to disable Motion animation triggered by user
interaction, unless  the motion animation is essential."

I can +1 this

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

> Hi Alastair,
>
> Two comments... First, I'd strongly suggest changing "can be disabled" to
> "a mechanism is available to disable", especially if a technique is going
> to be to tie into user agent settings where the author must rely on that
> mechanism from the user agent.  So it should read:
>
> "A mechanism is available to disable Motion animation triggered by user
> interaction, unless  the motion animation is essential."
>
> (There's also no need to keep the bit about functionality or information
> being conveyed at the end - it's inherent in the definition of essential).
>
> Second, please find a better word than "states" to use in the definition
> for motion animation.  This will inevitably get confused with the new
> glossary definition for states introduced by Graphics Contrast.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:15 PM
> To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; Greg Lowney <
> gcl-0039@access-research.org>
> Cc: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Proposal for: Animation from Interactions
>
> Hi everyone, and especially Patrick and Greg,
>
> The key thing to resolve for this one is whether it applies only to motion
> based animation, or more widely.
>
> Just before Christmas, the SC was widened to include more, this was
> (AFAICT) mostly from Greg, and triggered from a word in the understanding
> doc [2], "distraction". The history of the file is all there [3], I think
> it's an unfortunate impression as it's one mention in a short doc.
>
> For me, the balance is that whilst there might be some benefit to widening
> the SC, it also removes all animation (from interactions), rather than the
> ones we know can impact people. (I'm sure some animations don't bother
> people with cognitive issues, but the point would be that we don't know
> where that line is.)
>
> Therefore I propose to accept the changes from issue 697, so the updated
> text would refer to 'motion animations':
> "Motion animation triggered by user interaction can be disabled, unless
> the animation is essential to the functionality or the information being
> conveyed."
>
> Which are defined as:
> "Motion animation: addition of steps between states to create the illusion
> of movement and/or to give a sense of movement.
> For example, an element which moves into place or changes size while
> appearing is considered to be animated. An element which appears instantly
> in one frame is not using animation. Motion animation does not include
> changes of color, blurring or opacity.”
>
> Hopefully that can be agreed asap? Seems a shame to loose for this reason.
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] https://www.w3.org/2017/12/21-ag-minutes.html#item05
> 2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/21/animation-
> from-interactions.html
> 3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commits/animation-from-
> interactions/understanding/21/animation-from-interactions.html
>
>
>