Hi, following the discussion on accessibility rules, I wonder what is the best way to warn that the content of the site may present this or that risk to this or that person. I hesitate between a dedicated page, an overlay or a content show/hide. What do you think?
You mean something like those warnings before movies or videos that contain bright flashing lights that say âThe following video contains scenes of bright flashing lights that may cause seizuresâ kind of warning?
The only warning they could read perfectly is an accessible website. Which if you donât have one, the reader will know instantly. 
2 Likes
Not familiar with that topic, but would this be helpful?
1 Like
Hi @RapidBase , thank you for the link, it fits what I need. Modal ready-to-use, with a lot of option, Iâll buy it today. In fact, my question is wether about opinion of what you prefer on a site with « warning experience » 
. I Will use this stack for an area of my future site, but what about the entire site warning with different « dangers » for different people ? What Will be less « annoying » for visitors : one general warning, multiple targeted warnings, âŠ? A very stupid annoying directive again from EU, as usual maybe⊠without any precise indication of what/how to do, as usual again (thatâs why I said stupid annoying)⊠itâs up to us⊠as always⊠sorry Iâm really tired with this way of thinking existing. 
Update : Verifystack and minicookie bought (with hotspotpro, no need just pleasure). Itâs really great stuffs, easy to use. I want to thank Will Woodgate for his valuable videos, the one about Minicookie presents an overview of RGPD and in fact accessibility. I recommand. Thanks again for the link, eventually a good starting day 
3 Likes
Triggers that pose a health risk to a certain demographic should not be seen by that group unless they give explicit consent. The best way to do that is to have the warning on itâs own separate landing page that displays before the rest of the site loads (and the trigger isâŠerrrâŠtriggered). Make sure the visitors know what theyâll see if they continue to the site.
A modal is OK too, as long as the trigger doesnât occur simultaneously with the modal being displayed. So, for example, donât display a warning modal about flashing sequences against a background of flashing sequences. That kinda defeats the purpose, if you catch my drift.
For example, my own website (https://www.netstek.nl) has an animated element in the background of the homepage. While my site isnât in scope of EAA (it doesnât meet the criteria), if it was, that animated element would have to remain hidden unless a person explicitly agrees to it being displayed.
The new law, that will come into effect in your EU member state sometime after 28 June 2025, dictates that the visitor should be able to switch off the elements on your site that cause you to display this advance warning/disclaimer. So just a warning will not be enough, since your site must be usable by people with (for example) photosesitivity. So fast moving images, animations and flashes should be didsabled at the visitorâs request.
Well, if your website is in scope of the new law of course. Most websites arenât though.
But itâs always good practice to cater for all your potential visitors, including ones that are sensitive to the kind of triggers that you have on your page. So Iâm all for including such a switch voluntarily.
To clarify, with âtriggersâ I mean elements on a page that, for example, may cause photosensitive or audiosensitive epilepsy patients to have an episode.
I donât mean content that may upset or make someone feel insulted (also called âtriggersâ) - those are not in scope of the new EAA, but youâre of course free to warn against that type of trigger too.
I also donât mean triggers that can cause autistic people to feel uncomfortable (like me!), or trigger someoneâs OCD, as they are so incredibly random that you can not possibly filter out all possible triggers (as there are just too many variables). (Ask me how I know 
)
Cheers,
Erwin
2 Likes
Hi @Heroic_Nonsense , thank you very much for your very detailed answer. In fact, my site will not be affected by the European directive, well, until it is decided otherwise⊠That is why I prefer to plan now and design my site in accordance with the legislation that will come into force. What is embarrassing is having to bow to the minority. I already hated to bend to the majority⊠in fact itâs bending that horrifies me. I like freedom and I donât see how to disable my animations (which will be the only raison dâĂȘtre of a part of my site, with a unique vocation for fun) will make the world a better place⊠sorry a more accessible place. Itâs as if someone suffering from vertigo but demanding to see Paris from the top of the Eiffel Tower forced to level everything to the ground. To tend to avoid what accentuates a disability, socially, is good ; using this as a generality is stupid. Any generality is false by nature, perhaps our leaders will accept it one day⊠Anyway, I have no idea to disable the different animations of my future site on request. Are there any leads or clue to do that ? In accordance with their Heighness the law of course.
Hi @Bruno,
People with disabilities might be a minority group, but theyâre a big one. Depending on which source you use, either 87 million or close to 160 million EU-citizens have one of the disabilities tackled by this new law. The latter number is about third of the EU population, the former is about 25%!
So one-in-four people in the best-case scenario. Very significant numbers then.
I understand where youâre coming from, but the group that benefits from this have been struggling more-and-more to use the web over the past few decades. Imagine being photosensitive and not being able to book a flight, because the low-cost airline that you can actually afford uses flashing images on their booking page? Or that youâre not able to shop online because youâre visually impaired?
Right now, disabling animations in RapidWeaver sites (as far as your site needs to - it looks like youâll be exempt from complying to this law [1]) can be done using a session setting, a cookie or with something like query bases loading or agent based loading.
Iâm sure that weâll see new stacks (or Elements) pop up as 28 June 2025 approaches that offer complete solutions for managing things like animations. Perhaps an update to your preferred animation stack, for example.
For an easy example, you could go for query based loading. This means that you can use a stack that listens to queries to determine to either load or notl oad certai nstacks on your page. I sometimes use QueryDisplay ($Free, Stacks4stacks.com) for query based loading. You set it up, put whatever stack should be switchable inside it, and give it a unique query to listen to. Then build a way for the user to select between putting the query in the URL or not.
For example:
Build your site as normal, but put the stacks that you need to make switchable inside QueryDisplay. Set up QueryDisplay to only load the content if the following query is active:
example.com/?animations=on
Now, built a modal with two buttons (and a bit of an explanation to the user as to why theyâre seeing the modal): one button to show the animations, and one to not show them.
If the user clicks the âShow animationsâ button, have it forward to Example Domain. If the user clicks the other button, have it forwarded to Example Domain
You can also make the modal itself listen to the query, so that it wonât load if the user directly enters Example Domain into the address bar.
This is just an example - not thought through in detail and probably not the best way to do it, but it should work (and itâs free to boot).
Cheers,
Erwin
[1] Free advice as my gift to you - I normally charge about ⏠250 excluding taxes to figure out if a website is exempt from EAA or not 
1 Like
Hi @Heroic_Nonsense , again thank you very much for your detailed response and for the advice. I will take a look to Querydisplay (already made purchase this morning at Willâs online shop). As you know I am a psychologist and I have been working in the disability sector for just over thirty years. Thatâs not why I have to agree with everything in this sector. When I mention having to comply with the minority, I do not mean disability as a minority but the few people who, in the name of disability, impose their views on others. One example among others: there has been a serious question of beeping traffic lights to allow blind and visually impaired people to move without help. What would people who are very sensitive to sounds of this type (and those who enjoy their sleep) have thought? As long as I make other examples, I am in good shape: relay antennas on buildings (sensitivity to waves or not, it obviously does not depend on that), bands and rough points on the ground to find your way (useful for people with mobility difficulties, especially for their balance). Thatâs why I said that any generalization is by definition false. It is impossible to satisfy everyone at the same time with the same thing. Iâm enlarge the line but itâs because this case is exaggerated. Couldnât we simply say in the site entrance âBe careful you will encounter such a thing, such a thing and such a thing⊠click on Leave if you donât want itâ rather than imposing a unique view on everyone? I understand the argument "it is not because I am photosensitive and your site uses animations that prevent me from accessing it that you should not offer me another way to access what I want. â But I am not one of those who think that this can make it possible to arrive at: "You must do this, this and that for your site to suit me. â Respect implies reciprocity. Otherwise it is just an obligation suffered that does not clearly say its name. There I think I have moved far away from site design with Rapidweaver⊠Sorry. Hope Devs will give us solution ready2use, as usual.
Hi @Bruno,
This is turning into an interesting discussion.
No one is telling you that you can no longer use any animations (for example) on your webpage. The new law simply states that some websites should make them optional. The law specifically targets websites that have the potential to lock people with a disability out of certain things in society, like not being able to use ecommerce, or booking a flight, or communicating with the city officials that they live in.
The law only applies to companies in those specific fields, and within that subgroup only to companies with a higher annual turnover. With the exception of ecommerce, youâll have to be either a big bank, a governmental body or a (big) transport operator to fall into the group for which the new law applies.
For ecommerce it all comes down to annual turnover. If youâre a small webshop, it wonât apply to you.
Neither your professional website nor your personal website fall into this category, so for you itâs entirely optional in both cases.
And youâre right that beeping traffic lights for the visually impaired can annoy people, but letâs be realistic: everything annoys a group of people if you look hard enough. Just last week I ran into a street protest against Friends (the TV sitcomâŠ) who were advocating to have it removed from the schedule as it has been repeated 60 million times on one channel alone in the Netherlands (and multiple channels air it here).
Cheers,
Erwin
Hi @Heroic_Nonsense ,
I totally agree with you. Indeed, my site does not fall within the scope of law enforcement (personnal , non-profit, no sell of whatever, just presentation for fun) but for the sake of fairness I want to comply with it because it is part of what I defend. I know Iâm hurting myself but contrary to the adage itâs not for nothing. The law does it badly because it is designed by politicians whose profession is politics. We are all experiencing this. But by complying with the regulations, it allows me to be totally free in the thoughtful expression of my opinion. To leave the ground to a few âwell-thinkersâ is to grant them the permit to oblige me. Not excluding begins it seems to me with the feeling of belonging. I can only cite the example I witnessed a few years ago at the checkout of a supermarket: a pregnant woman refused to move more quickly to a âhandicapâ cash register because pregnancy is not a disability. People around me began to argue about this womanâs behavior, totally forgetting that her most fundamental right is her freedom to decide. I still find myself very far from website design. Again sorry. I really appreciate our exchange and I thank you for it.