Re: [office] Re: Fw: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] Table Refresh Delay

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/7/20 Peter Korn <Peter.Korn@sun.com>:
> Dave,
>
> I believe there are two, separate issues here.  They are:
>
>  1. What are the appropriate units to use for table refresh in ODF?
>      -> what I've heard suggested from TC members is the ISO standard for
> this, which allows time to be expressed in milliseconds as well as larger
> increments

More correctly it is a length of time rather than a unit of time.
Duration as per
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#durations-dates-times



>
>  2. Where is/are the appropriate place/s to ensure that user interactions
> with an ODF document won't cause a seizure?
>      -> what I suggest is the appropriate place is in the ODF application,
> not the document format specification

There I'll disagree Peter.
Not where in an application. Where in the ODF specification should it
be required to constrain the value to more than 0-0-0T0:0:0.4 say.




>
> The reasons I suggest the appropriate place is in the ODF applications are:
>
>  1. The app is where the rendering & user interaction occur
>  2. Not in all cases does a table refresh have the potential to trigger a
> seizure (only if enough of the field of view is making a sufficient
> luminosity change in the triggering frequency range).

Agreed, the (~ 10% idea). The refresh rate relates to the table
section 8.6.1 isn't specific on the size. I find it hard to justify
restricting the refresh rate based on the screen portion, hence
I'd prefer to err on the safe side.





>  3. My belief that the purview of the ODF accessibility subcommittee is
> accessibility issues (and not anything beyond that).  I personally feel free
> to offer my opinions on all manner of things ODF-related, but I do so as a
> member of OASIS interested in ODF; not with my "accessibility hat" on.

So why isn't seizure such an issue ?


>  4. My own sense that user interface considerations should not dictate
> encoding schemes, they should simply place requirements on what is needed
> (and thus I wouldn't say that the only valid table refresh number must
> explicitly be outside of the range of 3-50Hz).

The 'encoding scheme'? I'm guessing you mean the scheme by which
the duration is specified - isn't the issue? We could specify 1mS or 100 years
using that?


>
>
> Thus whether or not I believe a vendor or any application author does or
> does not have good reason to update some portion of the screen at greater
> than >3Hz, my sole accessibility concern is whether that update has the
> other attributes needed to trigger a seizure.

Which leaves me puzzled Peter. IMHO there is a risk.



> Whether or not something is a good idea from a design or aesthetics point of
> view, if it doesn't cause a true accessibility problem then it isn't my job
> to make sure it is fixed.

Far simþler than that IMHO and not an aesthetics issue.


regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk