W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

RE: Proposal for: Animation from Interactions

From: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:16:38 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "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>
Message-ID: <927a80c9f1d641a18f8f4c3c955761cb@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>

>  I'd strongly suggest changing "can be disabled" to "a mechanism is available to disable", 

Arg, it’s been like that for like a year, and you bring that up now??!  ;-)
[Steve] In my defense, this is like the 3rd time :)

I would bring in the same argument from text-spacing, the idea is NOT to add a widget to the page, we’d like to encourage the use of the preference.
[Steve] All the more reason to use mechanism.  It's really the only term in WCAG that says go ahead and rely on the user agent to provide that preference.  Arguments against "can be" are that it begins to assume capabilities of the user instead of just stating a criterion.

I’ll live with it to get it through, but I will personally email you every instance I find of people assuming it requires a widget!
[Steve] I'll set up an auto-reply that copies the definition of mechanism in WCAG with a nice tagline ;)

> Second, please find a better word than "states" to use in the definition for motion animation

 Um, how about conditions? There aren’t that many suitable synonyms.
[Steve] Conditions might work.  Maybe also frames?


Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 18:17:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:22 UTC