(no subject)

[denise]

If you:

* Experienced a mild photosensitive reaction to the changes in the last code push (however you define 'mild');
* Do not currently have any userstyle or custom CSS applied to dreamwidth.org and did not have a reaction to the version of the entry/comment page that was live on the site before the code push;
* Are technically comfortable installing and/or using Stylus/Stylish userscripts;
* Are willing to possibly get a headache For Science if our changes didn't work (and then disable things as soon as you realize you are, of course):

-- then please chime in here! We have a few things we'd like to A/B test with a wider pool of people who are more susceptible to some of the triggers in the last set of changes than our photosensitive alpha testers are, but we don't want to put things in front of people who had the more moderate or severe reactions until we have a bit more confidence.

Comments

[denise]

Cynically-but-accurately: it's because this problem is in the absolute infancy in terms of being understood, the science is almost nonexistent, and it's taken what, 20 years for sites to understand what alt text is and why they should encourage people to specify it and that's a lot easier to explain, something this nebulous is gonna be a lot harder.

You can make things like "your color contrast must be within this window of numbers" and "don't include anything that flashes more than 3 times per second" as a hard-and-fast rule that accessibility checkers can check for, and therefore that sites can apply without having to understand the neurology behind, but 90% of this problem is guesswork and entrail-reading based on cutting edge neurological research that you really have to look to find. I will not say I'm an expert, but I know more than most people who aren't studying this sort of thing directly, and we still hit The Wrong Window; most sites that don't trigger problems for people are not triggering problems for people completely accidentally.

[22degreehalo]

+like