- From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:01:04 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <868351C2-8F15-4534-A267-FDD9E746B68B@umd.edu>
> On Apr 14, 2017, at 6:36 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Gregg, > > Ah. I understand now. Thanks. I suspect we wouldn't be able to define > "it" or restructure the sentence to everyone's satisfaction. Why not? just replace IT with what IT means. > Lets' find out what happens with Proposal L&M on the survey. I think we are slipping backwards. I thought we resolved this before but … the language Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden as follows with no loss of essentialcontent or functionality. assumes that all technologies allow this - and therefore outlaws all technologies that do not. So anything that doesn’t have style sheets or similar mechanism will not be able to conform to 2.1? or am I missing something? > > Proposal L (Level AA) > Proposal L text reads: > Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden as follows with no loss of essentialcontent or functionality. > > • font family to one different font family > • text color and background color to a single different text color and a single different background color > • line spacing (leading) to 1.5 > • letter spacing (tracking) to 0.12 em > • word spacing to 0.16 em > > > Proposal M (Level AAA) > Proposal M text reads: > Except for images of text and captions, a mechanism is available to set text styles of the page as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality. > > • font family @@ Set a range @@ > • text color and background color @@ Set a range @@ > • line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5 @@ do we want to increase this?@@ > • letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@ > • word spacing to at least 0.16 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@ > > Kindest Regards, > Laura > > On 4/14/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: >> Laura >> >> that was not the problem >> As I pointed out in my email, it was the word “it” that was the problem. I >> suggested that you might be able to solve the problem by restructuring the >> sentence so that you didn’t have something that said “if the technologies >> are available to do it then you must do it, otherwise you don’t have to.” >> >> That isn’t what you intended but if you look at the structure of the >> sentence that is what it says. >> >> So I didn’t have to do with that phrase but rather the structure of the >> sentence. I also suggested that you could fix it by defining what “it” was >> more specifically then using the ambiguous pronoun. >> >> Gregg >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 5:29 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi David, Gregg V, Greg L, Jim, Josh, Andrew, and all, >>> >>> David, thank you for your email and clarification. We missed you at >>> yesterday's meeting. >>> >>> I agree that Greg L's proposal (J&K) isn't testable. It gets us back >>> to where we first started. I had asked him to edit his J&K section of >>> the Wiki page. Greg, if you can make your proposal testable, I will >>> ask that it be added to next Tuesday's survey. If not, I don't think >>> there is much point as it doesn't meet minimum SC requirements. >>> >>> Gregg V, the "If the technologies being used can achieve" language was >>> taken directly from 1.4.5. But we can go back to the language in >>> Proposal C and simply remove the words "at least" which some people >>> found confusing. >>> >>> So I have now added Proposal L&M to the Wiki page [1]. >>> >>> Josh and Andrew, can the L&M proposal please be added to next week's >>> survey with the simple question asking if anyone can not live with it? >>> >>> Thanks everyone. >>> >>> Kindest Regards, >>> Laura >>> >>> [1] >>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_L_and_M:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach >>> >>> On 4/13/17, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> I see in the minutes the following: >>>> >>>>> davidm adamant about hard metric for testing >>>> >>>> Actually I' >>>> m not at all >>>> >>>> "adamant about a >>>> hard metric" >>>> . >>>> I'm hoping for just ONE metric for each, and it can be ANY one metric. >>>> I wouldn't call that "hard". It's very soft. I think making authors >>>> responsible for EVERYTHING is a big mistake. The SC cannot work like >>>> that. >>>> The author needs to declare the font overrides they are relying on for >>>> their statement of conformance. The tester would test that. It's fine to >>>> test other things and make recommendations, but for conformance it has >>>> to >>>> be testable, apples to apples between the author and the tester. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David MacDonald >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >>>> >>>> Tel: 613.235.4902 >>>> >>>> LinkedIn >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >>>> >>>> twitter.com/davidmacd >>>> >>>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >>>> >>>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * Adapting the web to all users* >>>> * Including those with disabilities* >>>> >>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy >>>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To me J and K are steps backwards, making authors responsible for all >>>>> 256,000,000 colors... >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> David MacDonald >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >>>>> >>>>> Tel: 613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902> >>>>> >>>>> LinkedIn >>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >>>>> >>>>> twitter.com/davidmacd >>>>> >>>>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >>>>> >>>>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * Adapting the web to all users* >>>>> * Including those with disabilities* >>>>> >>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy >>>>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Laura Carlson < >>>>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Greg and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg, thank you for your input on the call today [1]. I have added >>>>>> your proposals to the Wiki page as Proposal J (Level A) that removes >>>>>> hard metrics from the SC and Proposal K (Level AAA). [2] Please adjust >>>>>> these as you see fit. >>>>>> >>>>>> As Andrew requested, tomorrow I'll ask on-list for a vote between J&K >>>>>> and H&I [3]. They both use an in tandem 2 SC approach. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>>> Laura >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html#item01 >>>>>> >>>>>> [2] J&K Proposal >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Greg_L.27s_ >>>>>> Proposal_J_.28Level_A.29_and_K_.28Level_AAA.29:_Also_an_in_ >>>>>> tandem_2_SC_approach >>>>>> >>>>>> [3] H&I Proposal >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_H_. >>>>>> 28Level_AA.29_and_I_.28Level_AAA.29:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Laura L. Carlson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Laura L. Carlson >> >> > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 14 April 2017 16:01:38 UTC