Thread Subject: Re: Pausing

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 7:05 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Pausing"
• Previous message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Pausing"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Is there a better term than hiding that would make it clear that what is
meant is making the item invisible both visually and also that it would
be marked so that state is programmatically determinable? I've seen
this problem crop up when items are "hidden", but often through various
mechanisms are not marked sufficiently to be interpreted correctly by
AT.

I'm not really attached to the suggested change, just a suggestion as
the word "hide" just seems to be less descriptive than we might want.
yeah, and I'm the guy for simplicity!




Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 8:52 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Pausing


Jared thinks we agreed that "hiding" of decorative content should be
allowed as well as stopping. Since we hadn't discussed this, I just
noted it in the draft I submitted on Friday.

The current wording of the pausing provision is:

Moving, blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating information must allow
pausing by the user unless it is part of an activity where timing or
movement is essential. Such content that is pure decoration must at
least allow stopping by the user.

Proposed rewording of the second sentence:

Such content that is pure decoration must at least allow stopping or
hiding by the user.

Are there any objections to this modification?

Andi
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
IBM Human Ability & Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able

• Next message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Pausing"
• Previous message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Pausing"