W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?)

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:43:10 +0200
Message-Id: <C9734184-6A55-4B3B-8E8E-B4D24584DBDC@umd.edu>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, To Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
always better to work it out before a call for public comments.     If we wait til public comments we will still have to accommodate the issue(s).  

I presume there is an issue on github that your comments can be entered onto — or a new issue can be created without having to wait for public comment?     If a new issue is posted it can be then addressed before the next  call for comments.

g



Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Apr 27, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> wrote:
> 
> Laura, your original question was if we could live with Proposal N. Of course: I would not presume to hold up publication. However, I'll be extremely disappointed if this ends up being the final wording, for reasons I've stated in the surveys and on the calls. If we need to move along, though, so be it. I'll resubmit my concerns in a later stage (although I do wish we had more mature tools so I wouldn't have to keep track of them myself).
> 
>     Greg
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?)
> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> <mailto:gcl-0039@access-research.org>
> Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <mailto:w3c-waI-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Repsher, Stephen J"<stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> <mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org> <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> <mailto:shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> <mailto:jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> <mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Date: 4/26/2017 9:43 AM
>> Hi Greg,
>> 
>> For the time being I was thinking one AA SC and dropping the color and
>> font-family bullets. We could add a note similar to the one in
>> Andrew's proposal [1], saying we want to to include overriding text
>> color, background color, and font-family, but haven't yet found a way
>> to do so that is sufficiently testable.
>> 
>> Then after more research reassess the situation. At this point not
>> sure if  we would end up with 2 SCs or not.
>> 
>> Please check Proposal N for the SC text:
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_N <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_N>
>> 
>> Could you live with the text in that proposal?
>> 
>> My thought is that it would be good to get some text out to the public
>> and then be able to build on it.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/288/commits/3f49688d0720969cb31fe300d1a697294b249bba <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/288/commits/3f49688d0720969cb31fe300d1a697294b249bba>
>> 
>> On 4/26/17, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> <mailto:gcl-0039@access-research.org> wrote:
>>> Laura, assuming we're still splitting Adapting Text into two SC, were you
>>> intending this sentence for the Level A, the Level AAA, or both?
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's
>>> intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has
>>> support in 2 technologies?)
>>> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>> To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>, w3c-waI-gl@w3. org
>>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> <mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White
>>> <jjwhite@ets.org> <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew
>>> Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>,
>>> Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> <mailto:shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> <mailto:jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims
>>> <glenda.sims@deque.com> <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf
>>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> <mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>>> Date: 4/25/2017 3:49 AM
>>>> Hi Gregg and everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> I'll ask this question again in a slightly different manner:
>>>> 
>>>> Are you or anyone else not able to live with the following for the
>>>> Adapting Text SC's intro sentence?
>>>> 
>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can
>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or
>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>>>> 
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>> Laura
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/24/17, Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quite a few are listed on the options page [1] for instance, the last
>>>>> one at AA  is Option L:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can
>>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or
>>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you can't live with that particular one, Is there any proposal on
>>>>> that page, that doesn't have the "technology being used" language that
>>>>> you could live with?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>> Laura
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options>
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>  wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you include the current wording for the SC you are asking about?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> g
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Laura
>>>>>>> Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you live
>>>>>>> without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have it
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> SC will fail general applicability.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but  in the
>>>>>>>> exploration
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> specific SC.   For the most part - that has not been necessary.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And discussion of specific SC are underway now.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But if you have a blanket  “we will never use this”  then you might
>>>>>>>> block
>>>>>>>> some SC(s) from being able to get in at all.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by case
>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>     It is not needed by most all but may be needed by one or another.
>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>> lets see.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J
>>>>>>>>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> <mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language that
>>>>>>>>> gives
>>>>>>>>> an author power to simply skip over an SC just because they use a
>>>>>>>>> technology with poor accessibility support.  Any exceptions should
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> clear restrictions and backup accessibility support (as does "Images
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Text", for example).  For WCAG 2.1, with or without the language is
>>>>>>>>> probably not the question.  Rather, what is the compromising
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> now until we get to Silver?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which web
>>>>>>>>> technologies are "major", but in order to talk about future-proofing
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> need to discuss responsibility.  And currently, the responsibility
>>>>>>>>> chain
>>>>>>>>> has a very weak link from author to user that is only going to get
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> important to strengthen as we talk about adaptation, linearization,
>>>>>>>>> personalization, and other needs.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web
>>>>>>>>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards.  The
>>>>>>>>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>> buck stops there obviously in its current form.  The problem is that
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, trying to remain
>>>>>>>>> technology-agnostic would result in the same core issue: no
>>>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>>>> is formally placed on web technology developers (at least not
>>>>>>>>> outside
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> W3C).  If we really want to produce guidelines which are both
>>>>>>>>> independent
>>>>>>>>> of current technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> have to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with
>>>>>>>>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or otherwise
>>>>>>>>> conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>>>>> <greggvan@umd.edu> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com> <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>>>>> <akirkpat@adobe.com> <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor<josh@interaccess.ie> <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>; Repsher,
>>>>>>>>> Stephen J<stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> <mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; To Henry<shawn@w3.org> <mailto:shawn@w3.org>; Jim
>>>>>>>>> Allan<jimallan@tsbvi.edu> <mailto:jimallan@tsbvi.edu>; Glenda Sims<glenda.sims@deque.com> <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>;
>>>>>>>>> w3c-waI-gl@w3. org<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf
>>>>>>>>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> <mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> SC
>>>>>>>>> has support in 2 technologies?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>]
>>>>>>>>>> If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used"
>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>> on all of our SCs?
>>>>>>>>> [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at
>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used to
>>>>>>>>> meet
>>>>>>>>> WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies in use
>>>>>>>>> today,
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier,
>>>>>>>>> HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>> Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in
>>>>>>>>> mind,
>>>>>>>>> and WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do agree with
>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>>> that major user interface revolutions may well be coming, but they
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be based on implementation technologies that adequately support
>>>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for
>>>>>>>>> whom
>>>>>>>>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this
>>>>>>>>> e-mail
>>>>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy,
>>>>>>>>> distribute,
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and
>>>>>>>>> delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is
>>>>>>>>> prohibited.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your compliance.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>> --
>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 08:43:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 08:04:09 UTC