W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2011

RE: Further example for F69

From: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:15:09 +0200
To: "'Detlev Fischer'" <fischer@dias.de>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4ec2c856.4d3bdf0a.2383.722c@mx.google.com>
I would like to explain my perspective on the issue of F69, and why the
group had tentatively decided to table this failure, in the hopes of
avoiding an unnecessarily long discussion of this issue at the next meeting.
Originally, the examples from F69 violated the success criterion only when
using text resize, but when using zoom, no text or content was lost. Since
zoom is a valid way of satisfying the success criterion, these examples were
essentially obsolete for this failure. The group then tried to rewrite F69
to indicate that the examples would only fail when text resize was being
used as the technique for this success criterion, but that with zoom the
failure would not apply. At that point we realized that the test procedure
was also misleading. It states that if one resizes the text and content is
lost, there is a failure. In fact, one might test with text resize and find
that content is lost, and conclude that there is a failure, when, in fact,
there is no failure at all, since zoom can be used to resize without loss of
content. The group tried a few stabs at rewriting the test procedure, but
was unable to reach a consensus on any of the drafts that were suggested.
All of them seemed to leave room for confusion. 
So, there are really two issues at hand:
1. Getting examples of content loss which fail in zoom, as well as text
resize. Thanks to James, Kathy, and now Detlev, we have these examples.
2. Rewriting the test procedure in a way which will leave no doubt that
there is no failure when zoom is used without content loss. This is the
greatest of the two problems.
Though most of the group was wary of throwing away valuable examples, we
decided that the suggested rewrites for the F69 test procedure were not
clear enough.
It is my feeling that unless we make it crystal clear in the test procedure
that zoom can satisfy the SC, then we do need to delete F69. This is a
technology specific failure, and there is a precedent for such a deletion:
(to the best of my recollection) a similar failure was deleted - I believe
it was F68 (though I didn't find the minutes for this), because it was
technology specific, namely ARIA provided a way of associating a label with
a control field.

-----Original Message-----
From: Detlev Fischer [mailto:fischer@dias.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:22 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Further example for F69

I tried my hand at a further example for failure F69 that works in both 
text zoom and page zoom, this time involving an absolutely positioned 
header box.


Probably needs further work but seems to demonstrate failure in both IE 
and Firefox, also in Opera and Chrome.

Talk to you an Thursday,

Am 14.11.2011 23:17, schrieb Loretta Guarino Reid:
> We'll reopen the discussion around F69. We will take advantage of
> Detlev's presence to review his latest failure proposals. Please send
> any other items we should take up on Thursday.

Detlev Fischer PhD
DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp

Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
E-Mail: fischer@dias.de

Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 20:16:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:08 UTC