Thread Subject: Pausing
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: 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
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Pausing
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
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pausing
On 8/20/07, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> 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?
If the moving content is decorative, the non-text content provision
requires that it be hidden to AT anyways, so I don't think this is
really an issue. I believe this provision applies only to the visual
properties of the content (thus my beef with the more expansive word
'auto-updating' which I've commented on a few times already).
Jared Smith
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Pausing
Jared:
I think you are echoing my point. The "visual aspect" is what gets made
invisible, usually through .css or through odd graphics effects. What
I'm after is that the "hiding" is programmatically determinable--e.g.
.css generally.
thanks.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared
Smith
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:44 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Pausing
On 8/20/07, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> 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?
If the moving content is decorative, the non-text content provision
requires that it be hidden to AT anyways, so I don't think this is
really an issue. I believe this provision applies only to the visual
properties of the content (thus my beef with the more expansive word
'auto-updating' which I've commented on a few times already).
Jared Smith
WebAIM is an initiative of:
