G186, but many, many videos

[yatil]

In G186: Using a control in the web page that stops moving, blinking, or auto-updating content, the following sentence is not entirely accurate:

A single control may stop all moving or blinking content on the page, or there may be separate controls for separate parts of the content.

This might be correct for large separate pieces of content, but if I have multiple of such content on the page, hunting for each pause button will be tedious. Imagine a shop overview page where each item has an animation, and those animations can only be individually paused/stopped/hidden.

I would consider this a violation of 5.2.5 Non-interference as the user’s ability to remove the barrier and enact a pause will be impacted by other non-paused elements.

I wonder if there is a way to phrase the sentence quoted in a way that clarifies that 2 or 3 individually stoppable things are maybe OK, but that there are limits.

[mbgower]

This seems to be related to #4447

I agree that a bunch of material playing at once with each needing to be independently stopped is not a good situation (although obviously the ability to start them independently is desirable).

As you point out, there may be grounds to use the second note:

Since any content that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a user's ability to use the whole page, all content on the web page (whether it is used to meet other success criteria or not) must meet this success criterion. See Conformance Requirement 5: Non-Interference.

However, I would argue this is adding a requirement that does not exist in the current normative text. There is nothing there that seems to require a holistic method of stopping all videos at once.
If the wording of the SC was "all" instead of "any" here, there would be a bit more we could work with:

For any moving, blinking or scrolling information..