- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:24:47 -0600
- To: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Hi Jim, I've updated the SC Wiki page with the new short name [1], SC text [2], and tweaked the description [3]. If everyone can live with it, could you please update the GitHub issue to match so we can get input from the full AG Working Group? Thank you. Kindest Regards, Laura [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Ability_to_Override#SC_Shortname [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Ability_to_Override#SC_Text [3] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Ability_to_Override#Description On 2/10/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alastair and all, > > Yes. It certainly seems the discussion is going in circles. I proposed > we go with the following with no note: > > SC Short name: > Adapting text > > SC Text: > No loss of content or functionality on a webpage is caused by overriding: > > 1. font family to Verdana, or > 2. foreground and background to white on black, or > 3. line height of all text to 1.5, letter spacing to 0.12em, and word > spacing to 0.16em. > > Can anyone not live with that? > > Kindest Regards, > Laura > > On 2/10/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: >>> Wayne would like Verdana removed from the SC text and put into the >>> testing >>> section or a failure technique. >> >> That is where we started, but Gregg (at least) said if it can’t be tested >> true/false from the SC text, it won’t meet the SC criteria. You can flesh >> things out in the understanding doc, but the SC needs to be a true/false >> statement. >> >> >>> Shawn is concerned about including the note and would like it removed >> >> I agree, with VIP reader around we don’t have to worry about cross >> technology support. >> I understand that reader won’t open all PDFs, but neither will Acrobat >> reflow all PDFs, and I guess for the same reason? >> It is possible to author a document that can open in VIP, that should be >> enough. >> >> >>> Jim suggested removing the word "webpage" to take the "technology" out. >> >> Webpage is the basic unit of WCAG testing, it is listing under ‘important >> terms’ at the top! >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms >> >>> Wayne suggested taking the hyphens out of line-height, letter-spacing >>> and >>> word-spacing. >> >> I guess that reduces the direct reference to CSS, which is probably a >> good >> thing? >> >> >>> No loss of content or functionality is caused by overriding: >>> >>> 1. font family, or >>> 2. foreground and background to a single different foreground color and >>> a >>> single different background color, or >>> 3. line height of all text to 1.5, letter spacing to 0.12em, and word >>> spacing to 0.16em. >> >> If my team tests a page with Verdana and black & white, and another team >> tests the same page with “Latin Wide” (or some other very differently >> sized >> font) and purple and green, we will get different results. >> >> Not due to subjectivity, but objectively different results. >> >> Given where these SCs are used (including for lawsuits), I think Gregg is >> right to say we need normative testability. >> >> If there were some way to state the requirement without a specific >> font/color/size value and still have it be testable, that would be great. >> But it has to be a content requirement, not a user-requirement, and that >> means specific values. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -Alastair > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 10 February 2017 18:25:20 UTC