RE: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)


         What a neat idea! I played in your sandbox, and hope I gave you an 
interesting description. I may not have answered the question of whether it 
flickers, but the animation is a smooth movement around the circle,  not a 
flicker at all.


At 02:08 PM 7/26/01 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>aloha, y'all!
>i know i should be working on my outstanding action items, but something's
>been bugging me since listening to gregg's response to my posting of the
>image's URI and the ensuing discussion of it -- what the hell does it
>depict/convey?  what exactly is animated?  how is it animated?  what is the
>point of the animation?  does it contain any text, or is it purely iconic?
>so, while i'm quite happy that a lot of us have been conscientiously
>discussing a graphic at the behest of a poster to WAI-IG, i am quite
>troubled that no one's taken the time or effort to describe the graphic,
>other than to say that:
>    a) it is a graphic;
>    b) it will serve as a hyperlink;
>    c) the poster was concerned that the animation in the
>       image might constitute flickering;
>    d) as an icon, it is somewhat confusing (only anne
>       seemed to dissent from this opinion);
>    e) it has something to do with radar and it is
>       animated (extrapolation from the file name,
>       radar.anim2) -- could it be a radar image, such as a
>       weather map, or could it be a radar monitoring screen?
>moreover, i haven't (at least so far) received the impression that anyone
>who's commented on it really knows at what it is supposed to point, all of
>which is very puzzling and almost as frustrating...  so, i'm appealing to my
>fellow working group members -- could someone please provide a LONGDESC
>(long description) of the graphic being discussed?
>actually, could everyone who's commented upon the graphic provide a
>LONGDESC -- no, hold on a minute -- i'm curious enough to know how each of
>you perceive the graphic and what information you derive from it to put
>together an attachment that is a prototype for a long-standing project of
>as simply put as i can muster, the project is this:
>1. i get a digital camera and take it with me wherever i go
>2. i have people take pictures of places, objects, and people that i
>encounter -- especially those things that "you've got to see" or which leave
>the sighted observer (at least at first encounter) at a loss for words...
>3. i then post the images to the web, each on an individual page, with a
>simple, 2-field form:
>    the first field is a simple "text" INPUT field,
>    limited to 50 characters, although i've toyed
>    with the idea of limiting it to as few as 25
>    characters or as many as 75 -- what do people
>    think?)
>    the second field is a free-form TEXTAREA in
>    which a description as long and as detailed as
>    the visitor deems necessary to adequately convey
>    the "content" contained in the image can be
>    entered
>4. once you fill out the form, you're rewarded by
>    being able to discern how others described the
>    image you just described
>so, who's gonna play in my sandbox?  consult the attached to get sand in
>your shoes...  i suppose i'll compile the results and archive that in the GL
>mail archive as well -- on second thought, i think i'll just have the output
>output straight to wai-xtech...
>PS: in the interim between composing this and resuming composition this
>morning, i've been able to glean a few more tidbits of information about the
>graphic, mostly from the thread on IG, but no true description has yet (as i
>write this and to my knowledge) yet been offered...
>ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's
>own opinion.                -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
>                Gregory J. Rosmaita,
>      Camera Obscura:
>     VICUG NYC:
>    Read 'Em & Speak:

Anne Pemberton

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 14:37:51 UTC