Clarification regarding success criterion 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide concerning prefers-reduced-motion about wcag HOT 11 OPEN

Draft Proposed Response

Using newer features of a specific technology to fully address existing success criteria can sometimes be problematic. Use of this CSS query may be a case in point.

At first glance, prefers-reduced-motion seems like it could be used as part of a technique that could eliminate moving, blinking or scrolling content. However, such a technique would only be as effective as the actions taken by the author based on detection of the user setting (as well as the existence of an operating system user preference that is picked up by the user agent).

For example, if all an author did was to reduce but not eliminate motion in response to a prefers-reduced-motion query, the technique would not be sufficient (to meet 2.2.2).

In addition, the existing technique, Using the CSS reduce-motion query to prevent motion, which does have a check for the quality of the response by the author (i.e., prevent motion) does not seem to entirely address a need of 2.2.2, which is to do with discovery of information.

Since the SC lists a prerequisite where the information "starts automatically", one can infer that the user is aware of information before they elect to pause, stop or hide it. If such information was completely hidden from the user on page load via a CSS query, the solution does not seem to arrive at an equivalent outcome:

1. without the CSS query, the information first updates, then the user is aware of it, and acts;
2. with the CSS query, the user is unaware of the potential to receive additional information.

Given these considerations, a technique that used prefers-reduced-motion to address 2.2.2 would seem to need to address a number of points before it could be considered sufficient.

from wcag.

Check out #3478. Having a sufficient technique around prefers-reduced-motion might also help fix a dilemna with 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide. At least in my opinion.

from wcag.

There are situations like decorative animations that fall under 2.2.2 that could be met simply by turning them off. But agree that any technique would need to be scoped appropriately.

from wcag.

Hey, as someone who helped drive initial discussions around prefers-reduced-motion and 2.3.3 I am happy to go on record that the media query alone is not a sufficient technique for 2.2.2.
First, the media query is for reducing motion, not to specifically eliminate it. Part of me wishes it did, but then a lot of content would be lost to those of us who rely on it. Which brings me to my second point, there should not be any grey in if a technique is successful or a failure. Prefers-reduced-motion is there specifically FOR the grey areas. We know motion & animation can improve usability, but too much makes some people ill. The media query lets us have the best of both.

from wcag.

such a technique would only be as effective as the actions taken by the author based on detection of the user setting

as is the case with most "a mechanism is available" type techniques.

(as well as the existence of an operating system user preference that is picked up by the user agent)

comes down to the usual "accessibility supported" conundrum.

from wcag.