W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Comment on WCAG 2.0: Scaling and stylizing text

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:02:26 +1000
Message-ID: <15771.45890.764055.712679@jdc.local>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

So that I don't consume time at tomorrow's meeting expounding my
opinion, here are some suggestions:

I agree with Wendy that the solution to the problem Jon raised is to
implement checkpoint 1.3 correctly. Also, there is a broader question
of what should be served to a user agent. For example, one ought not
to send raster images to a user agent that indicates a preference (via
CC/PP or other methods) for vector graphics; similarly one should not
send "final-form" presentations to a user agent that performs styling
client-side. I think the scenario under discussion in this thread is
an instance of the broader principle that the content, as delivered to
the user agent, should match not only the user's needs and
preferences, but also the user agent's ability to carry out
adaptations and transformations, which can range from font scaling
(Jon's example) through to sophisticated interface or document
transformations. Emacspeak, for example, as used with the Emacs/W3
browser, has a range of supplied XSLT style sheets which, depending on
a user-configurable option, can be applied to the content before it is
rendered.

Accordingly I have two alternative suggestions:

1. to make any necessary adjustments to ensure that font scaling is
   encompassed under checkpoints 1.3 or 1.4.

2. to clarify the importance of accommodating the user agent's ability
   to adapt and transform content (actually this doesn't simply apply
   to the user agent; a proxy somewhere could also carry out the
   adaptations). Font scaling would then be one example of the
   underlying principle.

I do not think there should be a new checkpoint just to cover font
scaling. Rather, our guidelines seek to enunciate principles and to
build success criteria upon them; this level of generality in the
checkpoints, and (technology-neutral) specificity in the success
criteria, should constitute the background against which issues raised
at a technology-specific level, of which this is an example, are
raised. Concretely, we abstract and look for the underlying tenets of
accessible design.
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 23:02:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT