Tweak C39 and add new matching SCR40 #4404
Conversation
* wrap mention of `prefers-reduced-motion` in code tags * improve explanation for C39 * add a defensive reduced motion use (checking for `no-preference`) example code
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Co-authored-by: Dan Bjorge <[email protected]>
| @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | |||
| <ol> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-04-22">2 Jun 2025</time>: Added {{ "G226" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-06-02">2 Jun 2025</time>: Added {{ "G226" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-05-19">19 May 2025</time>: Added {{ "SCR40" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should update the 2 changelog files so SCR40 is the latest, and reflect when it's merged rather than when the PR was first written
(FWIW I have started working on a way to automate the entire Techniques Change Log; not sure which will get done first)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Leaving this here as comment for whoever merges this eventually ... update the changelog dates
| <ol> | ||
| <li>Enable the 'Reduced Motion' setting in your system;</li> | ||
| <li>Check that the motion is not essential;</li> | ||
| <li>Check that the element does not move.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little curious about this phrasing (which I realize is identical to C39).
I'm concerned this could be misinterpreted too strictly? i.e. if the "movement" is associated with new content appearing, or content being relocated, the content can still appear or relocate instantaneously rather than gradually via an animation, right?
If you think I'm overthinking this and it should be fine given the context of the rest of the page, feel free to ignore.
(This comment applies to both SCR40 and C39.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i hear you, particularly as the initial prose for the technique also seems a bit nuance-free "allow users to prevent animation from being displayed on web pages"
maybe just qualifying this with something like "unnecessary and distracting animation" in the description, and modifying the check to something more like "Check that the element does not show an unnecessary or distracting animation"
(but that's subjective, people cried...and I replied "yes, as that's the point ... not a blanket ban on animations in general, but reducing/removing the problematic ones)
| @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | |||
| <ol> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-04-22">2 Jun 2025</time>: Added {{ "G226" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-05-19">19 May 2025</time>: Added {{ "SCR40" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
prefers-reduced-motionvia JavaScriptCloses #3931
Previews: