- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:36:24 -0500
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Ian, 1. We already have pause in another checkpoint, as you pointed out so we do not need a checkpoint just for pause. So is your proposal to really delete the checkpoint since it is already covered somewhere else, if what you say is true I don't think it is a noteworthy special case. 2. We have turn on and off other multi-media objects and video was in there for potential: a. Flicker problems (freezing would solve) b. Distractions for people with cognitive disabilities (freezing does not resolve, this is the reason to turn off images) c. It could be confusing to some types of assistive technologies to have the video player running (we would need to discuss this with AT developers to get their view on the subject and this would require probably adding candidate recommendation to the process since our goal of CR was to get AT developer input). 3. I am not sure why this is even an issue. I don't remember it coming up in any of the reviewers comments, which is what we are responding to right now. My vote is to leave it the same unless there is some compelling evidence to change it. Jon At 10:49 AM 6/12/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote: >Jon Gunderson wrote: > > > > Ian, > > For some types of cognitive disabilities, people with visual impairments > > and some types of screen reder and magnification software my > > understanding was that it was important to turn off the > > rendering or not allow the rendering of video. > > Freeze may work for many people, but may not work for > > all people. What is the advantage of freezing a frame? > >It sounds like there are a couple of requirements: >1) Stop things from moving >2) Stop things from being too busy (e.g., don't open > too many viewports). > >But is "don't render content" a requirement? If so, then >why (still) video content and not graphically rendered >text? Or graphics? I don't think we have a requirement >for "make this page less busy" - the closest we get is >"don't open too many viewports". > >So what are the accessibility requirements surrounding >video and animation that freezing does not address? > > - Ian > > > At 10:33 PM 6/9/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote: > > >Hello, > > > > > >Please consider the following editorial clarification to > > >checkpoints 3.3, 3.5, and 3.6 (of the 7 May draft [1]): > > > > > > 3.3 Allow the user to turn on and off rendering of video. > > > [Priority 1] > > > > > > 3.5 Allow the user to turn on and off animated or > > > blinking text. [Priority 1] > > > > > > 3.6 Allow the user to turn on and off animations and > > > blinking images. [Priority 1] > > > > > >After discussion with Charles and Eric Hansen about > > >these checkpoints, we concluded that the requirement > > >was to "freeze" video and animations. The term > > >"turn on and off" may be construed to mean "do not > > >render at all" but I don't believe that is the requirement > > >expressed by these checkpoints. The accessibility problem > > >in these cases (unless I am mistaken) arises from the > > >distraction of the motion, not the mere rendering of > > >the visual information. We do have a P2 checkpoint > > >about turning off the rendering of images (checkpoint 3.9). > > >Therefore, I propose using the term "freeze" instead > > >of "turn on and off" for these three checkpoints. > > > > > > - Ian > > > > > > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000507 > >-- >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 831 457-2842 >Cell: +1 917 450-8783 Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services MC-574 College of Applied Life Studies University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: (217) 244-5870 Fax: (217) 333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 09:36:51 UTC