Testing Photo Gallery
How to flash safely?
The other day, the topic of gifs and photosensitive epilepsy came up on DS106 Twitter, so I thought I’d find out more. I went straight to the medical journals and asked a friend of mine who works at Jisc TechDis.
Types of light sensitivity?
There are a range of ill-defined sensitivities to light, from facial twitching in response to bright light, actual induced changes in brain electrical activity, and changes dramatic enough to induce a seizure. The latter is referred to as photosensitive epilepsy.
What objects or aspects of light can evoke a seizure?
Many of the medical papers report the most common stimulus is a FLASHING LIGHT, and can also be PATTERNS OF LINES, GRATINGS or CHECKERBOARDS. I think we all recognise sometimes we can watch stripes or squares on the TV or PC screen that make our eyes feel funny.
How many people does this affect?
The figures are a little unclear because the data relies on individual’s own reporting, and tests actually done in the lab measuring brain activity (electroencephalograms EEGs) are usually on selected individuals and not necessarily those at risk so are likely to be lower. Nethertheless, the figures range from 5 to 9 % of the population. SO IT IS STILL A RISK FOR A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS. (Fisher 2005). Studies suggest it is more common in young people than in adults.
Notable cases?
There have been cases of TV programmes and video games inducing seizures. Wilkins and colleagues (2005) described a case relating to a TV advertisement (Golden Wonder Pot Noodles) where seizures were reported in three viewers in the UK. In Japan in 1997 a children’s program “Pokemon” reportedly led to 685 admissions to hospital, with 560 identified as epilepsy. The cartoon displayed alternating red and blue backgrounds. What was startling was most of these people had never had an episode before. I’m not sure of the follow-up, meaning, whether this was just a one off event or actually primed the people into being sensitive, I do not know.
So what colours and patterns are thought to be worst?
Wilkins 2005 paper led to guidelines being introduced in the UK and Japan, and now also internationally. Although they are devised for TV and not PC screens where proximity, resolution and environmental conditions may be different, they are a useful guide for our understanding.
1. Frequency. Flashes with frequency >3 Hz are prohibited.
2. Opposing changes in luminance. Flashes ≥20 cd/m2 are prohibited.
3. Area of flashes. Flashes greater in area than one fourth of the screen are prohibited.
4. Color. Flicker from saturated red light is prohibited.
Where:
Frequency – in Hertz (Hz), the number of cycles of the pattern per second. Fisher (2005) reported that the majority of people in their study responded at a peak of 12–30 flashes per second, but Wilkins’s 2005 paper reported this lower at 3Hz or above.
Luminance – relates to the contrast between light and dark. The bigger the contrast, the bigger the risk.
Areas – stationary patterns seem worse than ones that move slowly. Stripes, gratings and patterns are implicated more than spots for example. The paper explains this relates to area covering the screen. On a PC we can assume the pattern might occupy the entire screen.
Colour – red is thought to be more provoking, although the effect of colour is not really well known. The importance of luminosity and contrast is much greater as a consideration.
So they recommend as a correction for you to look at the screen and ask these questions:
Are there more than five stripes?
If so, do they last longer than 0.5 s?
If so, does the brightness exceed the stated limit? If so, categorize the motion of the pattern
Are the guidelines contravened?
If so, reduce brightness.
———————–4life——————————————————————–
So what can we do?
- TV broadcasts are now monitored, but computers and video games are a bigger risk.
- People with known epilepsy will safeguard themselves using screen protectors and maybe coloured glasses, but many people just won’t know.
- Whilst the guidelines are written for TV, the effect of digital screens is less well known.
How to practice safe gifs?
Well not just our beloved animated gifs, but video and animations. I would use the criteria above as a guide – avoid flashing geometric patterns of contrasting colours.
But as my friend at TechDis commented:
Just don’t do it. Its not good for accessibility or usability.
As reported in a specialist workshop in 2004, flashing images on websites and roll-over-images are not good for usability. (NGfL Accessibility workshop 2004). I guess if we are making “art” we might want to think about it a bit more carefully.
And some additional notes on accessibility from Terry at TechDis regarding visual formats:
The accessibility of an image depends on technical factors (colourless, contrast, sharpness) as well as pedagogical factors (how effectively it is labelled, how well it is described, how it is integrated into a text / audio narrative).
For moving images, video and gifs:
However visual formats can create barriers to people with poor sight and they tend to be far less searchable and navigable than text.
So, we should certainly think about the art we are creating, and maybe we should be more careful about accessible alternatives to go alongside it?
Or maybe we should consider having a clear warning if we are unsure?
WARNING. CLICK ON THESE LINK ONLY TO GET EXAMPLES OF WHAT MIGHT BE RISKY.
http://www.b3tards.com/u/06fcfde66d4d6d6f8f8a/2001_spack_odyssey.gif
http://www.b3tards.com/u/9df6a3719a6251962e93/spack.gif
ARE YOU AFFECTED BY THE WEB IN THIS WAY? I’D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU? I AM A MEDICAL SCIENTIST AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND IN BRISTOL. I ALSO LOVE MAKING COMPUTER ART!
References
Fisher RS et al (2005). Photic- and Pattern-induced Seizures: A Review for the Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group. Epilepsia, 46(9). Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.31405.x/full
Jisc TechDis (2014). Technology matters – visual. Available: http://www.jisctechdis.ac.uk/techdis/technologymatters/visual
NGfL National Grid for Learning Accessibility Workshop (2004). Flashing, flickering and blinking. Available: http://www.websemantics.co.uk/tutorials/accessibility_workshop/sessions/session2/05.colour_usage/06.flashing/
Wilkins A et al (2005). Characterizing the Patterned Images That Precipitate Seizures and Optimizing Guidelines To Prevent Them. Epilepsia, 46(8):1212–1218. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12504202
Give me an OER every time!
WOW! The highlight of open education week for me undoubtably was Jisc Digifest 2014.
It was so packed with festival goodies that it was difficult to chose which sessions to attend, and then what highlights to write about. So here are a few, and some additional blogs for extra reading.
Jisc Digital Festival 2014
A rather shaky start!
The festival kicked off with a number of excellent speakers including Diana Oblinger from Educause. Along with the Jisc executive, I was soon launched into a rather unexpected and terrifying commercial world, with language including “service users”, “consumers”, with educational goals including “margins” and “metrics”. I did start to wonder what on earth had I attended this for.
Whether this was the intention of Jisc, along with the rather lovely but somewhat incongruous technology companies and suppliers in the main auditorium, to be moving toward a more corporate purpose I’m not sure? This was alongside one of the opening speakers talking about educational delivery (deliverology aggh), 3 month degrees, and I was beginning to think this all just reeked like the onion rings of the “Macdonaldisation” of education. I must say I entered the coffee break very depressed. But from that point on, it was clear that the conference delegates were having none of it! None of it I say!
The festival was about people!
I was rather thinking that a digital festival would be very technology-centric and all about the tools, but I was completely wrong. The next two days without exception, it was all about the people. The users, students, educators, technologists, librarians, members of museum staff, geologists and a wide range of delegates in attendance. And a few students but not enough. The festival attracted a diverse group of people which was refreshing and provided rich discussions in the workshops. For the win!
And Jisc is about people!
Each session was led by a member of the various Jisc teams, and I hope that Jisc in its corporate reshaping, does not forget to cherish their most valuable asset. Any company is only as good as its staff, and Jisc is about expertise, collegiality, enthusiasm and support. They are some of the most talented individuals I have ever worked with across any organisation.
OK. Now for the highlights.
Wikipedia: a platform for learners as producers.
Martin Poulter from Bristol University talked about a series of case studies that had involved students in Wikipedia writing and editing. Unbeknownst to most people I suspect including me – and I’m just doing a Wikipedia course myself – is that the level of writing, the need for accuracy, the need for good evidence and referencing, the need to work as part of a community – are all adopted to a very high standard. As Martin said:
Wikipedia values are scholarly values.
What a great thing for transferable skills and allowing students to be part of global communities and the knowledge economy. And it is open of course.
Open access monograph publishing
Amazing stories by Brian hole (Ubiquity Press, UCL), Rupert Gatti (Open Book Publishers Cambridge) and Martin Paul Eve (Open Library of Humanities, Lincoln). Each had a similar tale, naffed-off by the publishing industry so decided to set up themselves. Their books are free to access online, often openly licensed, and are certainly putting valuable subjects back on the map that publishers had little commercial interest in. They claimed that their websites were easily pulled together using Scribd online reader, Google books and Lighteningsource electronic printing solutions. I did struggle with the CC BY license, so yes, if I was savvy, I would set up a publishers in China, take the content, repackage and sell. As they pointed out, all the good for the distribution. Well, actually, yes! Genius.
My lasting concern though still of the CC BY license was how to preserve the quality and authenticity of the work. But knowing these guys, they’ll come up with a solution to that.
Digital content sustainability and entrepreneurship
Naomi Korn ( Naomi Korn Consulting ) and Stuart Dempster, Jisc. Well this was just too good to miss. How many conference workshops can you say were so good that you stole the flip charts afterwards? *confession*.
This was particularly pertinent to me because I run three open education websites which I financially maintain, albeit for the cost of probably a bottle of wine a week, it is certainly worth it. This session gave me the structure of a business model to consider based around the overall goals of the site – to maintain or to grow. Well grow I say!!! There are only so many hours in my days I can sit around my kitchen table supporting VAL, SCOOTER and BIOLOGY COURSES, and I now have a plan. Things to consider:
- Institutional ownership – far to many projects are pioneered by individuals and are never preserved by their institutions. A must for sustainability.
- Digital preservation – we can’t future-proof everything, but releasing materials openly licensed, using open source and not locked in behind proprietary software. Multiple file formats please.
- Existing and “outside of the box” revenue streams, or crowdsourcing a bit of money to pay the costs.
For more information, the Jisc Strategic Content Alliance has a heap of resources on this very subject, and I’ll be delving in very shortly.
The future of research – are you ready?
By Jeremy Frey and other contributors. I’m waiting for the Digifest site to publish the content and full list of contributors.
This was a mind blowing session. There is a rapid move toward publicly funded research in the UK making it mandatory to openly share all research data. The pain of the learning curve for open educational resources I remember was quite significant but achievable with the right support. The pain of this I feel will be much greater. It will require huge cultural changes to ways of working.
But new technology is helping – digital notebooks, data companies, increased collaboration between laboratories and transparency. Of course there are massive implications for individuals, departments and universities and much pain to go through before amazing benefits can be achieved.
I’m thinking – hurrah – the honest publication of research data that will at last overcome the bias of publication where mostly only POSITIVE findings are revealed. But would I want to reveal my scruffy notebooks to the world? And again, although it wasn’t clear if this would be openly licensed, but how would you prevent plagiarism, or even define it, if any researcher could pool data from a number of researchers, and republish? I guess that is the process of meta-analysis, so there would need to be assurances that the originator would be fully attributed. Fine, but not sure how you would police that.
Whatever happened to the MOOC?
Of course I’m going to pick this panel session because I was very kindly invited to participate, and what a mind-blowing panel talking about global open education in terms of history, university policy, activity in Scotland, applications to post-graduate teaching certificates, open educational science resources, and university courses that have gone totally and mindblowingly open.
It was quite telling, that during the entire course of the conference, MOOCs were barely mentioned. In fact I only recall one reference by Diana Oblinger in her keynote questions:
I would suggest that even though quite a lot of people are excited about MOOCs, …. they are a form of brand extension. It is not designed to be a course. They are hugely expensive and their audience is not traditional students.
Enough of silly MOOCs. The session was led by the irrepressible, irresponsible, unbelievable David Kernohan in his Chas n Dave t-shirt.
(Me), Antonio Arboleda, Lou McGill, David Kernohan, Lorna Campbell, George Roberts, Jonathon Worth.
And if that wasn’t enough of a panel, on video was: Audrey Watters, David Wiley and Jim Groom.
Some wonderful examples of the power of opening up classrooms were told and have been written about elsewhere today:
http://followersoftheapocalyp.se/digifest14-session-on-moocs/,
http://lornamcampbell.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/open-scotland-at-jisc-digifest/
http://loumcgill.co.uk/open-learning-has-a-past/
And finally, futurology?
The final conference speaker was Ray Hammond, a futurologist. Ray spoke about many things and how they will affect us. He missed out one very important thing though.
The future is absolutely and most definitely OPEN!