Trigger Warning Available

alastc opens #632 as a placeholder to make sure the updated flashing requirements work with the warning requirement, quoting Bruce's comment that YouTubers commonly warn about flashing and give time stamps, a protocol Bruce considers sufficient for the disability-related need and believes satisfies No Flashing via the note on accessibility-supported user preferences, though it takes a bit of rationalization. Bruce asks that the note, or the easily avoidable idea, be made explicit. alastc suggests an exception or applies-when clause will probably be needed. patrickhlauke reads the idea as exempting situations often outside the author's control as long as there is at least a warning first, but says the exemption must exist in the first place and is not a carte blanche.

GreggVan objects that counting a warning amounts to saying something is accessible if users are warned not to use it; warnings are good but should not count as passing that content. He later allows that the group can say a site meets its minimum standard if it warns first, or exclude content through an exception, as long as it is clear the content is not accessible. nattarnoff, who uses motion trigger warnings in presentations and is affected by such effects, says a warning should exist but is not sufficient: faced with one, nattarnoff leaves and looks for an alternative, and closing one's eyes for a few seconds usually means missing key content.

sydneycolemanfromgoogle's #541 says the phrase trigger warning has a broader meaning and could be read as belonging to the Control possible harm - Triggers area, and asks for a more specific name or a different phrase. julierawe's #736, filed for the COGA Task Force, notes that trigger warnings usually concern emotional health, which makes the provision confusing when its note defines triggers as flashing, motion lasting more than 5 seconds, and pseudo-motion; it recommends renaming it "Motion warnings available".

In #542, supports the effort but says it requires a specific list of common triggers to be tagged; leaving the determination to products would produce wildly inconsistent results, and subjective guidelines could supplement such a list but not replace it.

SuzanneKTaylor's #88 argues content can create a mood without containing any item identifiable as a trigger, and proposes that information about the mood content is likely to encourage be available or user-selectable, aimed at long-form content such as a movie, an ebook or a VR experience. medeaoblongata sees a related gap for connotative aspects of content, as distinct from denotative or purely decorative ones, where flagging a connotation can be more useful than a description.

detlevhfischer says mood depends on the user and context rather than being a property of content, that exposing annotations would add to cognitive load for many users, and that he does not see how it could become a general measurable outcome. ericwbailey says it would be impossible to quantify, before even considering cultural differences. patrickhlauke dreads auditors having to check this kind of meta information when judging conformance.

SuzanneKTaylor's #89 proposes that interwoven storylines be programmatically distinguishable or selectable, so some subtle triggers can be avoided by watching or skipping one full story. GreggVan replies that no content is free of triggers for everyone and that AI-based AT that detects and redacts per individual is the better route. SuzanneKTaylor agrees AT may handle these outcomes, with WCAG concerned with whether AT has the access it needs, but warns that a personal trigger profile could itself be triggering or harmful if leaked, so outcomes may need to stay at simple, common triggers for now.