accessibility hazard value change
Matt Garrish
As discussed on the call, I’m going to provide a quick recap of an issue I ran into with using “no” to negate the hazards (i.e., ‘noFlashing’, ‘noMotionSimulation’ and ‘noSound’).
My concern was that they could be misconstrued as presenting an actual hazard, indicating that flashing/sound is not present at all, etc. While we all clearly understand the intent, you have to be aware of the negating going on, otherwise the meaning could be open to many interpretations. In a copy/paste world, there’s no telling what abuse that could lead to.
To avoid any misunderstanding, my suggestion was to add ‘Hazard’ to the end of each negated value. So we’ll now set noSoundHazard as the value if it is known that sound is not an issue, or noFlashingHazard when flashing is not an issue.
The consensus on the call today was to update to these new values, but if you want to raise an objection please feel free to respond to this email.
Matt
Liddy Nevile
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.