Re: [office] Table Refresh Delay

["Warren Turkal" <turkal@google.com>]

-office-accessibility since I am not a member of that list and can't post.

I am in favor of using ms. I'm not sure that more granularity would
actually buy us anything.

wt

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com> wrote:
> I think the key question was around refresh rate values and what they meant.
>  This has digressed slightly.  I had suggested milliseconds is a good
> measurement of time for the value.  Whether or not it can cause epileptic
> fits is none of my concern.  Looking at ugly ODF docs or other content has
> an equal wieght in this regard and the onus is on the author – we are not
> telling people what content to use.
>
> I would like to ask for a decision – milliseconds as a measurement for
> refresh rates or ????
>
> What is the alternative people are thinking of if not milliseconds?
>
> Duane
>
>
> On 18/07/08 11:52 AM, "robert_weir@us.ibm.com" <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The key point in my mind is that the nature of the problem ("a  risk of
> causing an epileptic fit") may raise this from an accessibility issue to a
> safety issue.
>
> ISO Directives, Part 2, section A.2.3 gives the following guidance:
>
> "A.2.3 If health, safety aspects, the protection of the environment or the
> economical use of
> resources are relevant to the product, appropriate requirements shall be
> included. Otherwise,
> they may, in some countries, be made additional mandatory requirements
> which, if not
> harmonized, would constitute technical barriers to trade.
>
> These requirements may need to have certain characteristics with limiting
> values (maximum
> and/or minimum) or closely defined sizes and, in some cases, even
> constructional stipulations
> (for example, to achieve non-interchangeability for safety reasons). The
> levels at which these
> limits are fixed shall be such that the element of risk is reduced as much
> as practicable."
>
>
> So I think we should make some statement in the standard itself, not  merely
> in a separate guidelines document, that defines how to use this feature
> safely.
>
> Which leads me to the technical questions:
>
> 1) Surely, the table refresh itself is inoffensive, right?  For example, an
> application could have a table refresh (fetch new data) but only display
> updates when some other condition was met.  Or you might not have any GUI at
> all and the updates and recalc's trigger some action on the server.
>
> 2) Is any screen update faster than once every 3 seconds a problem?  Or is
> it only certain styles of updates, the ones which noticeably "flash" because
> of poor redrawing, lack of double buffering or whatever?  In other words is
> there any safe way of doing rapid screen updates?
>
> 3) Most display technologies are already redrawing at a fast rate. This is
> inherent in the graphics card/display technology.  So very fast rates are
> OK?  What is the range of rates where it is a problem?
>
> 4) How do we state this in the standard?  Would something like this work:
>  "Note: display devices which update information on the screen at rates
> between X Hz and Y Hz have been shown to prompt epileptic seizures in some
> people.  ODF applications which refresh the display with each table refresh
> shall provide an option for the user to suspend the rendering of such
> refreshes."  We could probably make a more general statement on
> refresh/animation/blink and place it in the conformance section of the
> standard.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com> wrote on 07/18/2008 02:12:38 PM:
>>
>> The main point is that implementors have control when implementing
>> the specification vs. being constrained by the spec.  Let's not put
>> weightless restrictions into the specification.
>>
>> Duane
>>
>>
>> On 18/07/08 10:35 AM, "Peter Korn" <Peter.Korn@Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> In OpenOffice.org we have the ability to turn animation off. I
>> agree with Malte; we shouldn't prevent the expression of fast
>> animation for those who want it, but we should enable users to not
>> have it displayed to them.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>>
>> 2008/7/18 Malte Timmermann <Malte.Timmermann@sun.com> <
>> mailto:Malte.Timmermann@sun.com <mailto:Malte.Timmermann@sun.com> > :
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't agree on "require user agents to limit this to no more than 3
>> times a second".
>>
>> I must admit that I don't believe a higher frequency would make any
>> sense for anything, but People have different needs, and if someone for
>> what every reason needs a higher frequency, the application should be
>> allowed to support this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Strongly disagree Malte.
>>
>> If there is a riks of causing an epeleptic fit, then I'd like
>> to see a 'shall' statement in the standard requiring
>> nothing more than 3 times per second.
>>
>> Peoples needs are my concern too.
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
> Duane's World TV Show - http://www.duanesworldtv.org/
> Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
> My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
> Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
> **********************************************************************
>