Re: adapting-text SC rewrite

Hi Alastair and all,

I noticed that Andrew's spreadsheet [1] currently has question marks
for the adaptable text SC for:

* Testable
* Condition not method
* implementable

Kindest Regards,
Laura

[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status


On 3/22/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:46:53 UTC