Re: adapting-text SC rewrite

Hi Alastair,

I certainly missed you too!

Yes, we had a lot of push back to drop specific values for font and
color on the call. I don't know how we will be able to test it without
values but Wayne said it is doable is working on a solution.

I personally  would not want the “mechanism” language as it inevitably
leads to the exhausting widget discussion. However, Andrew has that
language in his rewrite and  folks on the call seemed like it.

Jim put the adapting-text SC on Thursday's  LVTF agenda so we can
discuss the assumptions you asked about. Hope you can attend the
meeting.

In addition, I hope to reply to the GitHub comments after the LVTF has
had a chance to discuss all this.

Thank you for all of your help!

Kindest Regards,
Laura


On 3/22/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> HI Laura,
>
> I missed most of the good bits of the call yesterday, but I noticed that JF,
> MichaelC and others were supportive of dropping the specific values for font
> & colour?
>
> I’d be happy with that, but there would be some objections to over-rule as
> it is either there or not, I don’t see a compromise position.
>
> The “mechanism” language does lead people to think it requires a widget. Is
> this what we want?
>
> For the LVTF, there are a couple of assumption it would be good to get
> agreement on, and the first is:
>
> If the styles of a site prevent you from usefully adapting text, would you
> want a widget on the site to enable that?
>
> I’ve been leaning towards ‘no’, as if people provide a widget, it will be
> based on their colours/fonts rather than the ones you want.
>
> Also, I think we had changed the SC so that it works in a PDF context as
> well, is that correct?
>
> I have replied on github, but I wanted to check my assumptions!
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:19:43 UTC