Re[2]: Proposal for: Animation from Interactions

------ Original Message ------
From: "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk>
To: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>; "Patrick H. Lauke" 
<redux@splintered.co.uk>; "Greg Lowney" <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
[...]
>
>On 16/01/2018 22:15, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>>[...]
>>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."
+1. I think that is reasonable and as we are down to the wire, I hope 
others do too.

One thing about the definition for Motion Animation - do we have in our 
glossary? I see I definition for Motion actuation but not Motion 
Animation?

Thanks

Josh

>
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>-- @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
>