Re: Clarification of duration of flashing or flickering (Success Criteria 2.3.1)

On Oct 27, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Phill Jenkins wrote:
>
> Is the duration of the flashing or flickering (i.e., more than one 
> second of time) a factor in determining accessibility compliance to 
> WCAG 2.0
> See Success Criteria 2.3.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ 
> #seizure
> "... do not contain anything that flashes more than three 
> times in any one second period..."
>
> In my special case example, there is a slightly less than 1 second 
> duration of 3 flashes in an Adobe Flash image at the top of a draft 
> Shanghai EXPO 2010 page.
>
> WARNING - currently it flashes 3 times for slightly less than one 
> second, then repeats several seconds later.
> see http://fr.expo2010.cn/indextest.htm
>
> Assuming the developer adds a capability to stop the repeating Adobe 
> Flash movie, is it still a problem because it flashes 3 times, 
> regardless of the duration (e.g., 1 second, 10 seconds, etc.)? Or 
> does it need to flash more that 3 times a second of time for more 
> that 1 second of duration?
if it flashes MORE THAN 3 times in less than a second -- then it 
flashed 3 times in a second. so it fails.
but since yours only flashed three time in any one second period - it 
would PASS. even if it repeats later it passes unless the repeat is 
soon enough that there are more than 3 flashed in any one second period
four flashes alone are enough if they occur within a 1 second window.
(in the television code it would also fail if it ALMOST flashed four 
times a second but continued to almost fail for a long time. We did 
not carry that into WCAG).
but more than three flashes in less than a second fails all by 
itself. it is enough to trigger seizures.
>
> The "Understanding Guidelines 2.3" further mentions: "likely to 
> cause seizure when viewed even for a second or two."
> see http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure.html
In the phrase "likely to cause seizure when viewed even for a second 
or two." the operative word here is "for a second". the "or 
two" should probably be removed since it implies that more than one 
second may be needed. For some people that is probably true. but 
not for others. so the sentence should probably just say "likely to 
cause seizure when viewed even for a second" since that is 
accurate. We will look at this in the group.
>
> metrics to consider: Frequency, Duration, and Size (the text only 
> really address frequency and size, not duration)
The metric does include duration. it says more than 3 flashes in 
any one second period. the duration is one second. the frequency 
is not stated. it is a count and a duration. the size and the 
intensity are also both specified.
> frequency: (or interval) more than 3 flashes per 
> second of time? (3 to 50 Hz)
> duration: more than one second duration of time? if 
> it flashes more than 3, but for less than 1 second, is it a problem?
duration is any 1 second period.
> size: 341 x 256 pixel block or larger - see http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#general-thresholddef
>
> Since my example only flashes 3 times and not more than 3, and it 
> soon may change to not repeat - Guidelines 2.3 says "more than 
> three", then I think I do not have a problem, but I'm not sure - 
> hence the question to the list. Your informed opinions welcomed.
You are correct. you just pass.
>
> I also believe the text and explanation can be simplified. For 
> example:
> 1. by addressing the three different metrics; frequency, duration, 
> and size.
these are confusing. frequency assumes the flashes are equally 
spaced. so you can't use that term.
duration is specified. any one second period. size is specified 
- as an area of the retina.
> 2. by addressing the lower and upper limits of each. For example, 
> if the frequency is 40 times in a second, but only lasts 1 second or 
> less, regardless of size it may be hardly noticeable and not be a 
> problem.
40 times a second may not be noticeable (in fact your flicker 
frequency is lower than that ) but it is still very capable of 
creating a seizure. In fact 40 times per second is as dangerous as 
10. (20 is the worst)
> 3. add some more common passing and failing examples. The two 
> existing ones are good.
yes - I can see this could be helpful.
>
>
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins,