Skip to content

Understanding Guideline 2.3: Seizures and Physical Reactions #4328

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
caztcha opened this issue Apr 9, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

Understanding Guideline 2.3: Seizures and Physical Reactions #4328

caztcha opened this issue Apr 9, 2025 · 3 comments

Comments

@caztcha
Copy link

caztcha commented Apr 9, 2025

Understanding Guideline 2.3: Seizures and Physical Reactions | WAI | W3C
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/seizures-and-physical-reactions

This page contains the description "WCAG 2.0" in the "Intent" section. Because the 2.0 is outdated currently, shouldn't it be "WCAG 2" instead?

The objective of this guideline is to ensure that content that is marked as conforming to WCAG 2.0 avoids the types of flash that are most likely to cause seizure when viewed even for a second or two.

Kind regards,

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

I think we held off updating every mention of 2.0 in #3588 because of the mention in https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#background-on-wcag-2

Where this document refers to WCAG 2 it is intended to mean any and all versions of WCAG that start with 2.

Happy to reconsider though - there are quite a few other mentions of 2.0 in various understanding docs beyond that one.

@stevefaulkner
Copy link

I think we held off updating every mention of 2.0 in #3588 because of the mention in https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#background-on-wcag-2

Isn't that a reason to change it to "WCAG 2" rather than specifically refer to an outdated version?

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

this may have also been a time when understanding and techniques weren't version-specific, as in the same docs were shared between different WCAG 2.x versions. i believe now these are actually separated properly, so we could...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants