WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 7.3

Discussion in 'HTML' started by yb, Nov 22, 2005.

  1. yb

    yb Guest

    Hi,

    I'm a bit confused about WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 7.3, at:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-avoid-movement

    which reads:
    "7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid
    movement in pages. [Priority 2]"

    This is pretty vague. I've used javascript in some places to fade from
    one color to another on a timer. Its not absolutely necessary and the
    content is accessible without the script, its just a visual effect.

    So, does this color fading mean this checkpoint is not satisfied. What
    about hovering over a link which opens up a drop down style menu? That
    could be considered movement as well.

    I first thought it meant choppy movement, or blinking colors, i.e.
    something distracting and annoying. However, the descriptions seem
    much more strict in the guidelines.

    Also, the "Until user agents .." part is also a concern. Exactly how
    would a user agent stop movement, there are so many factors. For
    example, javascript allows for timer based code, would all of this be
    disabled, how could a user agent know what to do?
     
    yb, Nov 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. yb

    Dylan Parry Guest

    As if the love poetry wasn't enough, yb just had to say:

    > "7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid
    > movement in pages. [Priority 2]"


    I've always interpreted that as meaning avoid things like <blink>,
    <marquee> and animations[1]. I suppose it could also be extended to
    include things that fly around the page using scripting.

    Now the latter two items *can* be disabled by most browsers (ie.
    animated GIFs can be turned off, and so can scripting) and some can also
    disable blinking/scrolling text.

    To be perfectly honest, as long as you stay away from the obvious moving
    elements/scripts then I think you are probably adhering to this
    checkpoint as closely as you possibly can.

    __________
    [1] That aren't necessary as content.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!

    Usenet: The first post is free, but the next will cost you your soul.
     
    Dylan Parry, Nov 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "yb" <> wrote:

    > I'm a bit confused about WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 7.3,


    WCAG 1.0 is old, partly confused, partly outdated, and partly just too
    theoretical. It's still useful, but when used as a goal in itself, it easily
    becomes harmful to accessibility. Anyone who claims conformance to WCAG 1.0
    for any nontrivial page is misrepresenting the truth. How could he possibly
    know that he has used the _simplest language possible_, for example?

    > "7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid
    > movement in pages. [Priority 2]"


    That's a particular bad case. It leaves the key concept undefined and uses
    the nasty "until user agents..." condition.

    > So, does this color fading mean this checkpoint is not satisfied.


    What does movement mean on screen? It means that pixels change so that the
    displayed presentation changes. Color change is thus movement. Whether the
    checkpoint really means _any_ movement is and will remain an open question.
    (Nobody is working to clarify WCAG 1.0. A brand new WCAG 2.0, with no real
    continuity, has been under construction for a few years.)

    Use your judgement, and ask people (disabled people, experts on
    accessibility, or just anyone) what bothers users on web pages.
    If you ask me, fading effects can be nasty, may irritate, and may make
    the user wonder what's going on. Especially if there's no other than esthetic
    purpose, fading should not be used, for accessibility reasons. It is then
    up to you to consider how much accessibility matters in this issue.
    Fading is hardly a crucial problem to any substantial amount of users.

    > What
    > about hovering over a link which opens up a drop down style menu? That
    > could be considered movement as well.


    Certainly it's movement. The real problem with it is the drop down style menu
    itself. Most implementations of such features are really hostile to
    accessibility. Technicalities aside, it is better to offer a well-designed
    set of alternatives at a glance, visible without any particular selection,
    and visible as normal link texts.

    > I first thought it meant choppy movement, or blinking colors, i.e.
    > something distracting and annoying.


    They are surely among the worst cases, and there are specific notes on such
    phenomena in WCAG 1.0. Checkpoint 7.3 is more general.

    > Also, the "Until user agents .." part is also a concern. Exactly how
    > would a user agent stop movement, there are so many factors.


    That's one of the problems with the condition. Another problem, especially
    when using WCAG 1.0 as criteria, is who decides when the time has come to say
    that sufficiently many user agents do what the condition talks about.
    Besides, many of "until user agents..." points should be regarded as
    permanent.

    Useless movement should be generally avoided - for the exact reason why it is
    so popular among some groups of deeziners: it catches attention. Consider the
    difficulty of concentrating on something when there's something blinking or
    suddenly moving or just changing in sight. Then try to imagine how much
    more difficult it would be if you had severe problems in concentrating on
    anything in the first place and if your mind worked substantially slower.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 22, 2005
    #3
  4. On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > > "7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid
    > > movement in pages. [Priority 2]"

    >
    > That's a particular bad case. It leaves the key concept undefined and uses
    > the nasty "until user agents..." condition.


    I was thinking of that when I had occasion to visit this URL of
    a UK disability organisation: http://www.radar.org.uk/

    They must consider that the "until user agents..." condition is now
    fulfilled, as far as animated gifs are concerned.

    > Useless movement should be generally avoided - for the exact reason why it is
    > so popular among some groups of deeziners: it catches attention.


    Quite!

    > Consider the difficulty of concentrating on something when there's
    > something blinking or suddenly moving or just changing in sight.


    I usually scroll them outside the browser window if they're getting on
    my nerves! But yes, for some people they represent a more serious
    hazard.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Nov 22, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nospawn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    371
    nospawn
    Feb 3, 2006
  2. Karl Groves

    WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

    Karl Groves, Aug 13, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    403
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Aug 13, 2004
  3. Neal Becker

    checkpoint/restart python processes

    Neal Becker, Feb 1, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,686
    Neal Becker
    Feb 1, 2008
  4. Ganesh
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    669
    Ganesh
    Jul 2, 2009
  5. Ganesh

    WCAG 1.0 vs WCAG 2.0

    Ganesh, Aug 25, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,597
    Ganesh
    Sep 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page