- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:05:43 -0600
- To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Thanks, Wayne. The pull request is: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/124 I hope it goes into this week's survey. Kindest regards, Laura On 2/13/17, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 17:06:18 UTC