Re: Proposed clarification to checkpoints 3.3, 3.5, 3.6

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