Re: motionless?

Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> At 05:40 PM 2001-01-05 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >I vote for "motionless, unblinking text".
> >
> 
> AG:: and, _mutandus mutandi_,  "motionless, unblinking images" in 3.4?

Yep, already done locally...

 - Ian
 
> > - Ian
> >
> >
> >Al Gilman wrote:
> >>
> >> At 10:24 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, David Poehlman wrote:
> >> >below are two checkpoints with the word motionless in them.  I know
> >> >I've seen them before but it occurred to me that blinking is not
> >> >actually motion and that for both, perhaps the word static would be
> >> >better than motionless?
> >> >
> >> >   3.3 Allow the user to configure the user agent to render animated
> >> >or
> >> >          blinking text as motionless text. [Priority 1]
> >> >          Content type labels: VisualText.
> >> >          Techniques for checkpoint 3.3
> >> >
> >> >   3.4 Allow the user to configure the user agent to render blinking
> >> >          images as motionless images. [Priority 1]
> >> >          Content type labels: Color, Animation.
> >> >          Techniques for checkpoint 3.4
> >> >
> >>
> >> AG::
> >>
> >> Good point.  On the other hand, 'static' risks confusion with issues of
> >> dynamic
> >> content.
> >>
> >> Other terms that might work here:  unchanging, frozen, unblinking, "an
> >> unchanging display."
> >>
> >> Al
> >>
> >> >Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> >> >touching the internet
> >>
> ><<mailto:poehlman1@home.com>mailto:poehlman1@home.com><mailto:poehlman1@hom
> e.com>mailto:poehlman1@home.com
> >> >voice: 301.949.7599
> >> >---end sig---
> >> >
> >
> >--
> >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)
> <http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> >Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 20:04:18 UTC