Meeting minutes
introductions & announcements
alastairc: No new introductions
<alastairc> Survey for potential WCAG 3 modules: https://
alastairc: Announcements - survey opening for potential WCAG 3 modules. Link above.
alastairc: ... Survey includes usability testing guide for persons with disabilities, second is for another potential set of assertions that are process oriented things, third is to update research for the contrast metric which people could optionally use as another way of fulfilling the contrast criteria.
alastairc: ... Let us know if anyone has any ideas about those three topic through the survey.
GreggVan: Would the document that would outline the standard be a different category or the same category as best practices of WCG 3?
alastairc: We would draw out and want to publish separately, but thought it would be part of the informative document with WCAG 3.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to GreggVan
Rachael: Added the policy document to the list for people that are not in the meeting. Greg to add the keyboard accessibility document feedback in the survey.
Kevin: The policy document is called out as a specific piece of work; unsure if it was one of those things. It would not be part of the normative materials.
hdv: To clarify the goal - is it useful to put out this before WCAG 3?
alastairc: Yes, it is a deliverable before WCAG 3 is published.
hdv: Supports seeing color contrast and keyboard accessibility seem like a good idea in his experience.
<Zakim> Daniel, you wanted to talk about ACT Rules Format 1.1 AC rep questionnaire
Daniel: ACT rules Format 1.1 AC questionnaire
… open until 3 Feb 2026. It asks whether or not AC reps support ACT rules Format 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation.
… Thanks to all of you who already replied. Please bring this to the attention of your AC representative. We would greatly appreciate if they can reply
… If you have any questions please contact me or the Chairs
alastairc: Reinforced feedback to be added to the survey.
yes
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to announce survey on AccessU
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: Announcement - AccessU attendance feeler using the survey above.
alastairc: even if you can't go to AccessU, please respond that you are not able to attend.
<ShawnT> This questionnaire is open for answers until 23:59, UTC on 2026-02-10.
<Rachael> closes February 10th
Charter follow up
julierawe: End date for the AccessU responses?
Rachael: February 10
alastairc: No other announcements.
<alastairc> Charter updated: https://
Definitions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhaesDbhuB8SmOeX05-qfo0nSvdXHugpCJUw8rA9nfI/edit?tab=t.0
alastairc: Charter follow-up. Updates have been made. Email communications include which things have been updated or not. Conversations are still ongoing on final updates. Once completed, the charter will go through the ACs
alastairc: Shift to terminology work, continued from last week. Two parts: First, run through people's comments from last week, and second, get through term definitions that the group didn't get to last week.
alastairc: Expect an open discussion because commenters weren't aware of how the definition was being used, what requirement was drawing that definition, and open discussion closes those feedback loops.
alastairc: Sharing screen, described zoom options for visibility.
alastairc: Since last week, we had a non-alphabetic Writing Systems Edition. For Blocks of Text, a proposed temporary solution to revert back to WCAG 2.2 definition, and there was discussion. Potentially overlaps with some other teams.
alastairc: Revert back to definition in WCAG 2.2 for Blocks of Text.
alastairc: Jeremy asked if we intend to avoid defining terms that are only used in assertions. Response: Not always, it's less important to define if we were to use it in a requirement.
julierawe: We had some back and forth, and landed on something simpler for Diacritic. Need more clarity around it because it is an unusual term.
<Rachael> +1 to exploring linking to dictionary
<ShawnT> Could we add a link to an official definition?
alastairc: Agreed, its not a common term, and we don't want to redefine a dictionary term. Propose to have an explanation and a note underneath rather than having a definition.
GreggVan: If you define a term using dictionary definition, that's seems to be acceptable. Just try not to do it a lot. Definitely don't want to change the dictionary definition.
hdv: As a non-native speaker, there are a lot of words in WCAG that I've had to look up when reading WCAG, and I think that's fine. Thinks we shouldn't include it if we use the straight up dictionary term.
<Heather> +1 to hdv
<ShawnT> I know in my system / browsers you can right click and "look up" selected words?
<scott> +1 to hdv
alastairc: Seems like it would help non-native speakers to include a definition.
<hdv> +1 ShawnT, I use that al ot
GreggVan: It would be nice to have a function to link to the definition, and examples would be very helpful.
<Frankie> Plain language guidelines should help in making these decisions as well.
<kirkwood> how we are using it since it is not a common word. link to dictionary?
<kirkwood> no
alastairc: Julie, does the requirement make sense if you don't know what a diacritic is?
julierawe: With the examples of what passes and what fails, and having notes... (dropped)
<kirkwood> good point
Jennie_Delisi: Is there a difference in terms of the need for definitions between IT technical terms vs. non-technical terms?
<scott> an example in context makes a lot of sense. saves someone from having to help look it up in a list of terms or via a dictionary lookup
<julierawe> (I got kicked out)
<GreggVan> +1
GreggVan: Teach people to fish, don't give them a fish. In the glossary at the top, why don't we include a note that says we don't have definitions for terms that are in the dictionary but there are extensions for all browsers that allows you to click on a word and look up its definition if it is not in this glossary.
alastairc: Seems like we are going toward something that explains what diacritics are, but don't need it in the glossary.
stevef: Why don't we have a link to the word to its dictionary definition?
alastairc: Inserting links to an exterior source in the document may cause a undesired usability experience.
Illai: Wherever we can be most explicit about what we mean (we should). Since there are multiple dictionaries, and we are dealing with uncommon words, we don't know for sure that the definition would be identical, and then it opens it up to interpretation.
Kevin: Diacritic is explicit in terms of what it is and what it means. He goes back and forth on including examples. For example, providing examples for what an abbreviation is. Supports Greg in that the dictionary needs to match, if it were to be included. Explaining the definition in a note may be the most appropriate.
GreggVan: Asking about Julie finishing her thought.
<kirkwood> we are loooking for a technical solution for an editorial problem. we used rolllover or popup defintiions without change of state
<Illai> I can help with that on the Hebrew side
julierawe: Point is well taken, we need more examples. Right now there's just one example with the absence of diacritics can do. We need to show how different diacritics can make the same letters have a different meaning and pronunciation. We'll make sure we add more examples so that people have a clear idea of what we mean by a diacritic and it
may not be necessary to have a glossary definition.
alastairc: Keep the examples underneath the requirement text and keep it brief.
<Illai> Help with diacritics examples. for clarification
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to SydneyColeman
SydneyColeman: Question about translation: as we discuss these definitions for the users of WCAG. What do we do for non-English native speakers?
Kevin: Translation activities are as follows: Authorized and unauthorized translations of the WCAG specifications.
Kevin: ... heavily reliant on volunteer organizations to help with translations. We try to take a proactive approach on this and are thinking about it within the web accessibility initiative.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say good to cite a dictionary -- and suggest Wiktioary
SydneyColeman: Should we take into consideration what translators would find to be most productive
alastairc: We've been using plain English, clear English in the requirements.
GreggVan: Should we cite a specific dictionary?
<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to respond to dictionary question
julierawe: By the time we are ready to publish WCAG 3, maybe we should include user testing with different groups to ensure they are understood by lots of different folks.
hdv: For including specific dictionaries, I don't think we need to do that if the term has the same definition in multiple dictionaries. We don't need to make this more complicated than it needs to be.
alastairc: Conclusion about diacritic - take out the definition, but Julie's group will include a note with a brief explanation and at least one example.
julierawe: Nested clause to be defined without using the phrase dependent clause. Comments added for which changes were made.
alastairc: (Scrolling through definitions looking for further points to have a group discussion about).
alastairc: Biometric to be defined. Asked for the subgroup to comment on progress of this term
Rachael: Thinks that biometrics is used in context of dictionary term.
SydneyColeman: It would be easiest to give examples of biometrics, such as facial recognition software, fingerprinting, etc.
<Rachael> From Webster https://
<Rachael> the measurement and analysis of unique physical or behavioral characteristics (such as fingerprint or voice patterns) especially as a means of verifying personal identity
alastairc: Feels like "a turtle on its back" because he's having difficulty typing ;)
kirkwood: Hesitant to use the dictionary definition for Biometrics because it is a technical authentication.
GreggVan: +1 to kirkwood
<SydneyColeman> Fingerprints
<SydneyColeman> Facial features
<SydneyColeman> Voice patterns
<SydneyColeman> Iris or retina patterns
<jtoles> I suggest using "biometric authentication" rather than just biometrics
GreggVan: Supports biometrics having its own definition because it's a huge field. There are other things where we use it. There's a camera which can be done on web pages and not just the device.
<GreggVan> +1
alastairc: John and John Kirkwood support using biometric authentication rather than just biometrics.
<kirkwood> biometric information agree with Rain
<GreggVan> +1 use examples only as examples -- not a definitive list
Rain: worries about limiting it to biometric authentication, or limiting to specific technologies because of advancement of technology capabilities.
alastairc: Need to come up with a core definition for "Common Keyboard Navigation Technique." Asked if anyone has a document with this.
<julierawe> For transcript update: The "Unknown" comment about "worries about limiting it to biometric authentication" was from Rain
<kirkwood> defining down… allows for “dragging” or drawing
alastairc: "Down Event" - for the technical members of the group, wondered if we need to be more specific than 'is pressed'?
<stevekerr> "biometric" (even with its large definition) relies on the criteria to scope it (such as 'biometric authentication'). The definition of 'biometric' used within 'biometric authentication' is still the same, right? I'm not sure if it needs a definition.
<kirkwood> release? no
<GreggVan> Standard Keyboard Navigation & Operation Keys and Techniques is at https://
alastairc: worked out the difference between up event and down event transition action.
<shadi> https://
alastairc: "Essential" - reading comment, do we need 'absolutely'? seems redundant.
GreggVan: added link in IRC to W3C GitHub. Need to be consistent with the use of essential, critical, etc. We need to be clear and consistent with their use throughout the specification.
alastairc: Regarding "Essential" pulled up Bruce Bailey's comment that we need to update how the term is used in the draft.
maryjom: Similar to Bruce's comment, we need to make sure the essential definition aligns with 'essential exception' definition
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to point out https://
alastairc: Agreed with Mary Jo
<Detlev> +1 zo Shadi
<Atya> +1
shadi: Found the definition in the UI event specification, was wondering if UI events is directly related to HTML5, and maybe they're a better group to be defining this.
<hdv> +1 to shadi
<kirkwood> it is also defining how WE are using it so it’s not confusing for our audience
alastairc: Because we're trying to ensure this definition works across different platforms and not just HTML, ideally we would have something that represents different methods.
alastairc: agreed that we need to cross reference, but may need a more general term that isn't as technology-specific.
GreggVan: We need to think about that we have things like hover, etc. One definition in all the documents I've ever read, some are more specific and descriptive. We should find a definition that is clear. He doesn't think its an ambiguous term, it's just that different people with different words to say the exact same thing.
<alastairc> "absolutely necessary or required in order to achieve the same result" vs "necessary or required to achieve the same result"
alastairc: Inclined to live it as is.
<kirkwood> are we really defining essential?
alastairc: correction: inclined to leave it as-is.
@all
alastairc: Essential (unavoidable): need to use this term in many places.
Rachael: Start by exploring a dictionary definition.
julierawe: Searching through WCAG 3 draft to see where we use essential. Would it be helpful if we had essential/unavoidable. Try to get beyond a word in the dictionary, and not make people go read our particular definition of a word.
jkatherman: Calls out the use of 'absolutely, always, necessary, required'
<alastairc> Essential: always necessary to achieve the same result
<GreggVan> +1 to creating a term or phrase for things and defining it if we want it to have a particular meaning -- rather than redefining a word in english
<julierawe> For transcript update: The callout about removing "or required" was from jkatherman
alastairc: (scrolling through WCAG 3 Editor's Draft to see where 'essential' is used). Found 36 matches.
alastairc: If no objections to essential (unavoidable) definition, proposed using the shorter definition.
<alastairc> "always necessary to achieve the same result"
<kirkwood> the same result as?
<kirkwood> phrase would be better
<kirkwood> +1 to define our (commonly used) phrase
GreggVan: Comment earlier was that we shouldn't take things like essential and redefine them to mean something different, because people might not know it's a special term. He worries about redefining essential and then people argue about it because dictionaries have different definitions for it. We could define a phrase like essential-unavoidable.
<kirkwood> +1 to defining phrase
<kirkwood> essential functionality. s.a. drag and drop ?
alastairc: WCAG uses 'essential' in the context of its application in technology; when the 'purpose' comes into play for a product. Provides a get-out-clause for circumstances without giving a huge loophole. Maybe we could try something like a phrase like "essential to the functionality" that we need to look into.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to reask why we are moving away from WCAG 2.2?
julierawe: We often use 'essential' in an exception. Flagging that the word 'same' may be the problem.
<laura> +1 to Julie
<janina> commensurate?
<maryjom> +1 to Julie's comment. That's what I had previously tried to express
I think we need a reason to move from WCAG 2.2. essential - if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
<alastairc> GreggVan:
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say essential to outcome = there is no other way to achieve the outcome
<kirkwood> so thats handling both functionlity and information
<scott> +1 Rachael. but if it is being changed from wcag 2.x, "essential exception" seems like a reasonable term to move forward with for a new definiton
GreggVan: We can keep that definition but we should create a term that it is a definition for "Essential for outcome" or "essential for functionality"
<Rachael> +1 to new scribe
alastairc: As to why we are looking at this. From the discussion last week, the WCAG 2 definition is useful but long and not that easy to understand.
… we were trying to come up with something easier and then add the old one as a note. I think we've reached the end of that conversation for this meeting. Please try this in your requirements and report back via comments.
… We have image which I think we can leave as the dictionary definition.
… unless someone has an argument for needing that.
… The next one we got comments on is Method. I am wondering where this is referenced from. [reads current draft definition]
… That seems to work.
ljoakley: I would take out the last little piece "and scoring information"
… didn't we talk about scoring a few weeks ago and decide that we would not be putting scoring into WCAG 3.
alastairc: We agreed we would not have scoring at that level. Accepting comments to see clean version.
<kirkwood> +1 to removing scoring without defining
ljoakley: It sounds a bit awkward. Maybe "including tests"
julierawe: I suggest we end it at requirements and remove tests
<ljoakley> +1 Julie
alastairc: Method is a common word in the text. Whichever subgroup defined that, please see if that meets your requirements.
alastairc: Duff asked why non-embedded is needed in the definition of page? It is copied from WCAG 2. If you read the rest of the definition, it means that it could include contents in an iframe.
Duff: I get it I guess.
<kirkwood> is i frame non-embeded?
kirkwood: Is an iframe embedded or not embedded?
alastairc: An iframe would be an embedded resource.
… we may be able to cross link that.
alastairc: Do we need to define time limit, time out, or artificial time limit?
q_
Rachael: Are the distinctions between them?
Illai: We are still working on definitions.
alastairc: I would suggest we can see if it works without being defined.
… Support seems like a dictionary definition. I think visually collocated can be left as it is.
… If anyone has suggestions please get on queue
… We don't have comments on infinite scrolling or user orientation.
… Meaningful blocks of content. We do have a definitions for blocks of content. This is a bit different.
<kirkwood> logical blocks of content ?
alastairc: blocks of text is above. This is blocks of content. If you are looking at a page/view, how do you know what forms part of a meaningful block and what does not?
giacomo-petri: We will discuss this at tomorrow's subgroup. One suggestion is to change the definition to: a group of related content that represents a distinct topic or function intended to be perceived as a single unit and capable of being programmatically identified.
… [moves definition to document]
<kirkwood> would we prefer “logical blocks of content” or “related blocks of content”?
GreggVan: I think you should say "examples of meaningful blocks of content are..." That's definition by list. Adding examples of makes it clearer that there can be more things there.
giacomo-petri: If I am typing an email, what is a meaningful block of content? I think we need to review them again. We don't want to label each paragraph but if you have a single question in a dialog you may have a sentence that defines the meaning of the dialogue. I think it needs some refinement. I think in the notes we need to be very precise and convey the meaning.
kirkwood: I suggest logical blocks of content or related blocks of content.
GreggVan: This is tricky. We need to figure out what we are using this for so the definition fits all the use of the phrase.
… we don't want to accidentally define something that makes it impossible to use.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on circularity and going to best practices
alastairc: I think we've got things like Sections labeled. reads blocks of content available
… this reminds me of WCAG 2 when we were trying to define whether a control was visible or not, we gathered examples and asked everyone to say whether it was in scope or not. Very little agreement. It is because it is circular.
… when appropriate, put a heading in. I think this is going to be a best practice in order to get out of the circularity of defining a thing which the author has to decide. I suggest we gather a whole lot of interfaces and say what do you think are meaningful blocks of content.
giacomo-petri: One of the points we tried to address was a user need coming from people with cognitive disabilities
… people are not able to recognize when there is a change of topic when there are no labels/headings
… e.g. if you're within the homepage of a website, maybe there's a visually distinguishable header, then a carousel of promotional items, then immediately a bunch of items that are highlighted for some reason without any heading. So you don't really know how to separate sections.
… while understanding that might be subjective, the idea was to address people with cognitive disabilities' needs trying to group items together by using some kind of labels rather than relying on the design
alastairc: It's definitely a valid need; the question is how to objectively test it
ljoakley: Do we need this? Is there something that makes this feasible for an author to do? This is likely to be extremely difficult for some pages and create quite a bit of work for authors.
julierawe: I'm really rooting for this; I think structure is hugely important for clarity and ease of understanding with writing. Is it this term that we need to define or another term, not quite certain, but I think it is extremely important to do the work here
… it may not be perfect yet, but structure and layout are hugely important
<Detlev> it doesn't work in general, for all kinds of things - I believe it is overreach and should be scapped
alastairc: (chair hat off) Yes, we need something; whether it will be a requirement with an objective definition, I'm not sure. Going to go back to that recommendation of, test it - get some interfaces, test the definition, get people to draw on what the meaning of meaningful content should be
<kirkwood> structured blocks of content?
alastairc: if they can't - if it's easier to create a structure than it is to test whether another author's structure is meaningful
<kirkwood> is meaningful the difficult word here?
ljoakley: Thanks Julie for the perspective. I also agree that testing will be extremely difficult for someone just looking at a page trying to figure things out. I'd rather make it a best practice.
giacomo-petri: One more bit that I missed: in the previous stage, we worked on section labels and created a bunch of test cases both in codepen and in real examples, and we tried to work asynchronously leaving feedback on each
… we received almost universal feedback aligned on the output from the test. It'd be interesting if we could come up with a more meaningful definition.
alastairc: If you've got supporting evidence, that could help a lot with this, we could go back and examine
kirkwood: This seems to be talking about structured blocks of content. Is the "meaningful" part what's tripping us up?
alastairc: The tricky part is the requirement is trying to ensure people are structuring blocks of content meaningfully. So how do you define what needs to be structured?
… Giacomo, are there any others you wanted to get feedback on?
giacomo-petri: I think we can go to the next subgroup. Feel free to add comments, because we need them
alastairc: There are a few comments under User control / prevent harm. Flash was copied in from WCAG 2 I think. Kevin asked whether it's necessary.
… I'm assuming we do need it, otherwise the closest thing would require navigating to relative luminance
… size and frequency definitions are important, otherwise any kind of animation going back and forth could qualify
Kevin: I don't disagree we need to ensure we've got the metric in there, I just don't know whether the definition of flash is needed, or if we just need the metric. I guess it depends on how it's written, so I'm relaxed about it
… i.e. if flashing is the thing that's in the requirement, and then the definition defines the metric
alastairc: Yes, that is the case
GreggVan: You can have flashing in content, you just can't have more than 3 flashes within 1 second, and those flashes have to be more than X amount. If it's less than X amount it's okay, if it's fewer than 3 per second it's okay. We don't want something to say you can't have flashing, because you're going to have it.
… i.e. we shouldn't bury the details in the definition
… only saying "you can't have flashing" sounds overly restrictive. e.g. you can't have a singular lightning strike in media
<ShawnT> +1 joryc
joryc: Pushing back on Gregg; seizures are not the only risk. Flashing is also incredibly distracting for people with a variety of cognitive disabilities such as people with ADHD like myself
<Frankie> +1 to Jory's comment. It's also a common migraine trigger or a vestibular event trigger.
<ShawnT> Being able to turn it off
joryc: taking the flash of lightning example, I would rather people be presented with a means to opt into that rather than seeing it first
don't forget we have other requirements for that.
joryc: akin to respecting prefers-reduced-motion preferences
GreggVan: In the provision, not just the definition, should say "does not exceed thresholds", because people may not bother reading the definition
… opening a drop-down repeatedly could exceed the threshold
… page changes can cause flashes
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say difference between core and supplemental
GreggVan: the issue with flashes causing distractions should also be noted, but separately from the seizures topic
Rachael: This does have both a core and supplemental provision, so we should distinguish these two options
alastairc: My subgroup is working on this one, so I will take on that aspect of making the thresholds clearer and include within the body of the provision
alastairc: we also had comments on pseudo motion. RE Kevin, it may be worth taking on one or two of the updates
… pseudo motion is static comment. There is no "lasts longer than 5 seconds" because the content isn't actually moving, so it's entirely dependent on how long you look at it.
… maybe we need to update the provision to account for that.
Frankie: Repeating my message from IRC; if we talk about flashing, we should also talk about vestibular events and migraines, because those are also common and we don't talk about it anywhere.
… it falls under the area of "causes harm". If someone falls into a 4-day migraine cycle due to flashes, that's a huge amount of harm. If someone experiences vertigo and then can't drive home, etc.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say it should go into user needs
Frankie: migraines affect a large portion of the population
Rachael: I do think we need to call this out. I don't think it needs a separate call-out, but that it belongs within the user needs of this requirement
<julierawe> +1 to Frankie suggestion to add a note or to add user needs about flashing that cover migraines and other reactions beyond seizers
Frankie: I'm fine with that, thanks
<Zakim> joryc, you wanted to say we need to state very clearly that we need to respect user preferences around motion
joryc: I think we need to have a very clear statement (perhaps not here exactly) about requirements to follow user preferences, e.g. CSS media queries around prefers-reduced-motion.
<Frankie> +1 to Jory's follow-up statement
joryc: for things like what Frankie is describing, we need to go beyond that for sure, we can't assume prefers-reduced-motion can cover all of that
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about migrane / vestibular and triggers
alastairc: From what Frankie was saying, it's not in these definitions, but we do have provisions around animation, around animation from movement; of the things you mentioned Frankie, triggers of migraine due to flashing is one I haven't come across before
… Posting a link about what we're discussing, if you want to join the discussion next Monday, it's something we'll be talking about
… the difficulty with the vestibular disorder one is how do you define big on the internet
… any comments you can provide will be useful
GreggVan: All of the things we've mentioned that can cause harms are things we should address.
joryc - we've got methods for CSS preferences, but it needs fleshing out as to when it is sufficient.
GreggVan: long ago we decided we weren't going to do provisions in order of what affects the most people, because that'd be a can of worms
… we can't outlaw flashing, since that could even preclude page changes. So you need metrics on what constitutes too much flashing, which requires research.
… RE vestibular disorders, there's been decades of research on how much it takes to trigger.
<Zakim> joryc, you wanted to say "flashes" from UI elements don't generally repeat
GreggVan: RE flashes triggering migraines, I hadn't heard about that before either, but we should look for the same kind of research
<kirkwood> FYI “Flashing lights can be a frequent trigger of migraine attacks” https://
<Frankie> +1 to Jory's elaboration on why this could be a slippery slope
joryc: I don't want to do the slippery-slope argument with drop-down menus, there's a vast difference in that sort of use case. I have first-hand experience seeing migraines happen to people because of flashes.
kevin: The slippery-slope argument is absolutely correct. The key factor is the frequency. Then create a standard that highlights it and can be tested against
<Frankie> +1 to Jory and Kevin on frequency being an issue
kevin: I am wary of putting in guidelines that aren't necessary based upon a clear understanding and rationale for these things; they'll ultimately become untestable or create massive practical problems with implementation of whatever we're trying to do, whether it be a website or app
<kirkwood> NIH.gov https://
kevin: I'm essentially re-iterating Gregg's point; what we need to put in are metrics with concrete evidence as much as possible
GreggVan: +1 to Jory's comment and Kevin's concern.
<kenneth> Isn't a drop-down menu user-controlled? Isn't that a distinction?
<joryc> Frequency is very important. Technically everything on our screens is flashing all the time as it redraws the pixels but we just don't notice it :)
GreggVan: Intensity is also part of the equation. With HDR screens, even brighter flashes are possible. So we need to think about the combination of low intensity and high frequency that causes seizures, then also lower-frequency high-intensity flashes, even single flashes.
kirkwood: I put a link in chat about some NIH studies in this area
alastairc: I think we've gotten as far as we can in the time we have. I apologize for not getting down to the Single sense ones today. Thanks for the discussion; we'll be back next week.
GreggVan: What time is that Monday meeting?
alastairc: starts at the same time as this one