Re: Proposal for: Animation from Interactions

Hi Alastair,

"Effects conveyed exclusively through the varying of color, blurring, and/or opacity *without conveying a sense of motion* are not considered motion animation" seems redundant, since the definition starts by saying it only include things that DO "create the illusion of movement and/or to give a sense of movement". Thus, effects "without conveying a sense of motion" are already not included regardless of whether they use only color, blurring, opacity, or other factors. If it's only the sense of motion that matters, what is the purpose of a sentence about color, blurring, and/or opacity? You've essentially turned it into "CATS are MAMMALS that ARE FELINES. MAMMALS that ARE BROWN but ARE NOT FELINES are NOT CATS." It's true, but the second sentence is already implied and bringing up color just makes it needlessly confusing . . . but I suppose not actually harmful if you really want to include it.

(That said, editorially it would be better to continue using the term "movement" rather than switch to "motion" unless you intend to convey a distinction. Also, by repeating only one of the two conditions you imply that it doesn't apply to the other one, as if "[creating] the illusion of movement" is fundamentally different than "[giving] a sense of movement" and this sentence is only about the second. I'm actually not clear on the purpose of including both phrases in the definition.)

     Greg

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Proposal for: Animation from Interactions
From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: 1/17/2018 4:35 PM
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for replying, to respond:
>
>
> > First, it seems to exempt animation that convey a sense of motion using color changes alone. For example, if a GIF is blue at the top and green at the bottom, but changes between having having the dividing line sloping to the left, being horizontal, and sloping to the right, it would look like the view from a rocking boat, yet be conveyed totally by changes of color (hue and/or value). Is that intentionally exempt?
>
> I’m not sure that is exempt, if it looks like the view from a rocking boat, isn’t that movement/motion? If something just changes from one colour to another (e.g. the yellow fade effect) that doesn’t convey movement. If you have solid colours conveying movement back and forth, that is motion.
>
> When you get down to it, any change on a page is simply the change of pixel colours, it is the effect conveyed to the person that we have to work with.
>
> I think your next point would help with that:
>
> > Second, your intent would be more accurately phrased as something like "Effects conveyed *exclusively* through the varying of color, blurring, and/or opacity are not included in this definition.", since you don't want to exclude animations merely because vary color along with other effects.
>
> How about: “Effects conveyed exclusively through the varying of color, blurring, and/or opacity without conveying a sense of motion are not considered motion animation.”
>
> > Finally, I'll just add that it still seems a shame not to use this opportunity to …
>
> Indeed, we started with a more ambitious AA level SC, but we don’t have the research to back that up (yet). Would you> like to help with that for next time?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>