ArticleACM transactions on accessible computing2024
International Guidelines for Photosensitive Epilepsy: Gap Analysis and Recommendations.
Article in ACM transactions on accessible computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating Conformance of Video Safety Tools for Photosensitive Epilepsy.Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction : 19th International Conference, UAHCI 2025, held as part of the 27th HCI International Conference, HCII 2025, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 22-27, 2025, Proceedings. Part I · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People with photosensitive epilepsy may have seizures caused by flashing lights, patterns, and video sequences. Because of this, there is increasing interest among researchers, developers, and companies toward making content safer. There are five major guidelines (from the U.K., Japan, ISO, ITU, and W3C) to limit risk in different technology domains that have been created since the mid-1990s. All address similar risk factors, but they are not fully harmonized and can be confusing. Furthermore, there have been significant changes in technology since the guidelines were introduced. This article compares and clarifies the guidelines, describes risk factors that have changed (such as the reduction of risk due to display technology), gaps in our knowledge, the coverage of new technology, and new characteristics (such as the duration and synchronicity of individual flash transitions) that may need to be accounted for. The authors suggest working values for new thresholds and propose updated guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.