RE: motionless?

Sounds good to me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 5:41 PM
> To: Al Gilman
> Cc: David Poehlman; User Agent Working group list
> Subject: Re: motionless?
> 
> 
> I vote for "motionless, unblinking text".
> 
>  - 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
> > >voice: 301.949.7599
> > >---end sig---
> > >
> 
> -- 
> 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 17:56:33 UTC