Re: Issue resolution - Change to normative text of 1.4.12: at least > up to #637

Hello Everyone,

Thanks for sending this to the LVTF, Alastair!

IMHO it would be better not to change normative SC text and deal with
it in the understanding doc. Suggested text is in my AG survey
comment. Ideas for improvement appreciated.

AG survey results on the issue:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Techniques-issues-July-2019/results#xq4

Yesterday's AG Minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2019/07/23-ag-minutes.html#item06

Jim, maybe we can talk about this at the meeting tomorrow?

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 7/23/19, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi LVTF,
>
> Some of you will be aware of the (relatively minor) issue 635 [1], I'd like
> to establish the TF's opinion if you have a chance to discuss it?
>
> Essentially, where WCAG 2.1 text-spacing says "at least", the comment said
> it should be "up to".
>
> For example, the current bullet for line spacing:
>
>   *   Letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 times the font size;
>
> Would become:
>
>   *   Letter spacing (tracking) up to 0.12 times the font size;
>
> The current text does create a loophole, the content *could* completely
> break between the default and 0.12 letter spacing (for example). It would be
> hard to accomplish but it is possible, especially for line & paragraph
> spacing.
>
> On the other hand, saying "up to" makes it look like a ceiling.
> Superficially you might think that the more it can increase the better.
> Would that help? Wayne's comments in the thread appear to say not [2], but
> I'd like to check.
>
> What we want to say (I think) is Patrick's formulation:
>
>   *   Letter spacing (tracking) up to at least 0.12 times the font size;
>
> However, that is hard(er) to understand.
>
> For me it appears to be balancing the loophole vs the ceiling effect. It is
> playing with the language when actually people testing it will plug in the
> values and test those, regardless of which way around the SC text is
> written.
>
> If you agree that it is not an issue, the thing to update would be the
> understanding document [3], in which case what would you suggest?
>
> So the questions are:
>
>   *   Do you agree with the change to the normative SC text? (yes/no)
>   *   If not, can it be dealt with in the understanding document? (yes/no)
>   *   If it can be dealt with in the understanding doc, what would the
> change be? (A work item, could be done by someone else.)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/635
> 2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/635#issuecomment-513362895
> 3] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/text-spacing.html
>
> --
>
> www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 09:01:58 UTC