Proposed updates #1
Conversation
Proposed updates
| When flashing content IS found, the result for Test ID 3.A <span id="OLE_LINK17" class="anchor"></span>(Test Name: 2.3.1-flashing) is **NOT TESTED**. | ||
| - It is recommended that testers inquire about occurrences of flashing content. Vendors/developers should make testers aware of the location of any flashing content. (does this belong in this doc? Or e.g. guidance including sampling guide) | ||
| - The modified “small safe area” is intended for normal viewing distances or equivalent. If the content is intended for large displays where users may easily decrease the viewing distance, flashing content should be limited to … (KE: tell tester to change res/screen/browser zoom, size) cs: leave to tool? Using G176 approx, maybe 1/6 of screen? | ||
| - Testers with known sensitivities to flashing content should avoid testing flashing content. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what test result should be entered if the tester does not test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right now it would be "not tested" but in future, ideally something like "found but not tested" to clarify that flashing content was in fact present
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the flashing content is bigger than the "small safe area", what is the test result?
It isn't a full test of SC 2.3.1, so it can't be a true fail. "Further testing needed" would be true, but doesn't really say anything...
Partial testing can raise as many questions as it tries to answer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'd be like now, "not tested".
| Visually identify any content that flashes. Flashing is content that rapidly alternates between two or more states that vary significantly in contrast. | ||
|
|
||
| When flashing content IS found, the result for Test ID 3.A <span id="OLE_LINK17" class="anchor"></span>(Test Name: 2.3.1-flashing) is **NOT TESTED**. | ||
| - It is recommended that testers inquire about occurrences of flashing content. Vendors/developers should make testers aware of the location of any flashing content. (does this belong in this doc? Or e.g. guidance including sampling guide) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it makes good sense for the guidance doc instead of the test process.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a tester I would prefer a "one-stop shopping" solution. Maybe add a guidance section when needed per Test ID?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there already a tester's guide to the galaxy? It would include questions to ask and what testers need to prepare for testing. The Sampling guidance would be good there also.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doc is getting bigger all the time.
|
|
||
| When flashing content IS found, the result for Test ID 3.A <span id="OLE_LINK17" class="anchor"></span>(Test Name: 2.3.1-flashing) is **NOT TESTED**. | ||
| - It is recommended that testers inquire about occurrences of flashing content. Vendors/developers should make testers aware of the location of any flashing content. (does this belong in this doc? Or e.g. guidance including sampling guide) | ||
| - The modified “small safe area” is intended for normal viewing distances or equivalent. If the content is intended for large displays where users may easily decrease the viewing distance, flashing content should be limited to … (KE: tell tester to change res/screen/browser zoom, size) cs: leave to tool? Using G176 approx, maybe 1/6 of screen? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can the tool handle this? It would need to change it back when done.
Would Security want the tool to have this capability?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or what if the tool just sets it to 1/6 of the screen size?
| **Note**: | ||
|
|
||
| - Multiple requirements are specified for conforming flashing content. To determine if requirements are met, a testing tool would be very helpful but is not available at this time. The test process will be updated when a testing tool is identified. Until then, the result “Not Tested” will indicate that flashing content was found. | ||
| - Multiple requirements are specified for conforming flashing content. To determine if requirements are met, a testing tool would be very helpful but is not available at this time. The test process will be updated when a testing tool is identified. Until then, flashing content that is safely within the “small safe area” is allowed. The area has been reduced in this test process to provide an increased safety zone. . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More explanation would be helpful.
From general flash and red flash thresholds, Note 1:
NOTE
For general software or Web content, using a 341 x 256 pixel rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the content is viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels will provide a good estimate of a 10 degree visual field for standard screen sizes and viewing distances (e.g., 15-17 inch screen at 22-26 inches). (Higher resolutions displays showing the same rendering of the content yield smaller and safer images so it is lower resolutions that are used to define the thresholds.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to be about 1/6 of the screen at normal viewing distance - is that a reasonable max area to use?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Estimate from: 341 x 256 pixel rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the content is viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels
There was a problem hiding this comment.
alright, help me with the math here -
- 1024/3 = 341
- 768/3= 256
I get 1/9.
Unless the fractional value is necessary for testing, I would not include it. You'll need to explain the math. (And, it would be easier and more reliable to copy from the WCAG definition.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, that's right. doh!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thoughts on requiring warnings, or not allowing direct access to pages with flashing (outside 1/9 area?), without warnings first or user consent?
Proposed updates. Other proposals to be added: