Re: Issue 78 SC text (was Re: Post-Minutes update)

I can live with the wording you proposed Alastair, we all can. We
appreciate your negotiations.

Wayne

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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
>
>