- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:53:23 -0500
- To: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Jim and all, I suspect that the most of the list of items we have for Silver would not be accepted in a 2.2. I'm not sure about printing. The Icon Font Draft is written and in the Wiki at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Providing_a_Semantically_Identified_Icon_Font_with_role%3Dimg If anyone wants to port it over to GitHub, the placeholder is at: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/blob/tech-icon-font-img-role/techniques/aria/icon-font-img-role.html Kindest Regards, Laura On 10/17/18, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote: > Any thoughts LVTF? TPAC is next week. > We have the list of items for Silver - > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Issues_to_be_addressed_in_Silver > There was so much push back on the printing... it is an authoring issue -- > if the author can add widths to 100% the problem goes away. That may be a > possibility. > Others on the list are related to customization and user style sheets - we > have individual (moderately formed SCs), and we have the general SC - > Element > Level Customization > <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Element_Level_Customization>. > If users have the ability to modify the styles these customizations are > possible. This may be a browser issue. > > The carve outs for browser behaviors (i.e. focus ring, form borders, title > attribute) are the most irksome (to me). Tho, I think the solution to them > is a browser fix. Native browser rendering should meet WCAG2.1 by default. > If the group decides to advocate for removing the carve outs it will be a > huge protracted process. > > We may have a possible SC if there is push back on the Icon Font Technique > (yet to be written). At the moment this seem too tenuous to propose as an > SC. > > Any other thought? > > Jim > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:57 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Jim (and LVTF), >> >> >> >> Pre-TPAC, it would be useful to know if there are any potential SCs you’d >> consider for a WCAG 2.2? >> >> >> >> We haven’t determined whether the group will tackle that yet, but part of >> the decision would be: Is it useful to do a 2.2? >> >> >> >> Looking back, I couldn’t see much in the LVTF ‘defer’ list here: >> >> >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3ALVTF+label%3ADefer+ >> >> >> >> >> Printing customised text perhaps? >> > >> >> Given the shape of 2.1 now, are there gaps or things to tighten up that >> can work in the 2.x structure? >> >> Perhaps a couple of additional SCs that tighten up current ones? >> >> >> >> If there are others that didn’t make it to a github issue in the first >> place, now is the time to say so. >> >> >> >> I’m not sure who’s attending TPAC, but if there’s a short overview of 1-6 >> SCs I can run through them which would be very useful for the discussion. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> www.nomensa.com >> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653 >> follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc >> Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT >> >> >> >> Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411 >> > > > -- > Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator > Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired > 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756 > voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9452 http://www.tsbvi.edu/ > "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964 > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:53:47 UTC