Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)

Hi David, Wayne, and all,

It is a mouth full but I think we certainly could add Wayne's concern.

Can anyone not live with the following text to combine the 3 SCs?

​"​The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agent's
ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font
family​, ​or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs​
to the element level, for the full range of values allowed by the user
agent​."

Any other thoughts?

Kindest regards,
Laura
Maybe add Wayne's concern to the end of line

"...to the element level, for the full range of values allowed by the user
agent
​."

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 Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Does anyone prefer the following text to combine the 3 SCs.
>
> ​  "​The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agents
> ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font
> family​, ​or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs​."
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Laura
> On Jan 21, 2017 7:38 AM, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Terrific. Thank you so very much!
>>
>> Can anyone not live with David's text to combine the 3 SCs?
>>
>> ​   "​The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to
>> allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font family​,
>> ​or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs​.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>> Laura
>> >But it is not the content itself that is the barrier.
>>
>> ​WCAG's definition of content includes the way it's laid out.
>>
>> "content (Web content)
>> information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by
>> means of a user agent <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef>,
>> including code or markup that defines the content's structure
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef>, *presentation
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#presentationdef>*, and interactions"​
>>
>> But if the group would rather be more specific to help the audience
>> better understand, I'm fine with "Presentation of content" for the first
>> draft.
>>
>> >>an SC shouldn't be worded to what a user can or cannot do.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> 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 Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Laura Carlson <
>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thank you! Calling out the 3 specific areas is a very good  improvement
>>> in the SC text.
>>>
>>> I think removing "CSS"  to be tech agnostic  is a good move. But it is
>>> not the content itself that is the barrier. It is the presentation of the
>>> content. Would replacing "Content" with the "Presentation of content" be
>>> allowable?
>>>
>>> Gregg metioned in the mechanism thread that an SC shouldn't be worded to
>>> what a user can or cannot do. Does that rule out John's appoach to
>>> demarcate user and UA roles?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Kindest regards,
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>> ​>In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between
>>> what the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the
>>> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices).​
>>>
>>> ​I think w​e would need to replace CSS with something more generic, to
>>> be technology agnostic, even though we really might mean "CSS".
>>> ​ How about this attempt to combine 74, 78, 79.​
>>>
>>> ​   "​
>>> The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to allow the
>>> user to change foreground and background colors, font family
>>> ​, ​
>>> or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs
>>> ​."​
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> ​>In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between
>>> what the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the
>>> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices).​
>>>
>>> ​I think w​
>>> e would need to replace CSS with something more generic, to be
>>> technology agnostic, even though we really might mean "CSS".
>>> ​ How about this attempt to combine 74, 78, 79.​
>>>
>>>
>>> ​   "​
>>> The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to allow the
>>> user to change foreground and background colors, font family
>>> ​, ​
>>> or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs
>>> ​."​
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:43 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Laura,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you - that appears to be significantly more focused on what the
>>>> author should (or shouldn't) be doing, although I'd still like it to focus
>>>> more on the roles of both author and user:
>>>>
>>>> "Document styling using CSS is created in a way that permits *users*
>>>> to change presentational styling while not causing loss of content or
>>>> functionality. If no mechanism exists to change presentational styling
>>>> on any user agent for the target technology, then the *author* has no
>>>> responsible to
>>>> create one."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between
>>>> what the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the
>>>> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices).
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Laura Carlson <
>>>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alastair, Patrick and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is an idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alastair wrote:
>>>>> > Perhaps it should be something like:
>>>>> > "Changing the font-family used to display a web page does not cause
>>>>> loss of
>>>>> > content or functionality."
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the aim of issue 79 (font [1]), 78 (spacing [2]), and 74 (text
>>>>> color [3]) are so similar in aim why not expand it to cover those too?
>>>>> At one point in the Spacing SC issue Patrick suggested [4]:
>>>>>
>>>>> "...why not generalize the SC so that all sorts of presentational
>>>>> attributes (beyond just spacing) can be changed using user styles or
>>>>> similar? And the failure examples could then include things like
>>>>> !important and style attributes?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would something such as the following be too wide?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Changing presentational styling does not cause loss of content or
>>>>> functionality."
>>>>>
>>>>> And then adjust Wayne's disclaimer:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If no mechanism exists to change presentational styling on any user
>>>>> agent for the target technology, then the author has no responsible to
>>>>> create one."
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>> Laura
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79
>>>>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78
>>>>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/74
>>>>> [4] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-271164347
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Hi Wayne,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm not so concerned with whether the user can change the
>>>>> font-family, as
>>>>> > they can.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It is what issues *come from* changing the font-family that are the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>> > I assume it is things like overlap, wrapping that breaks interactive
>>>>> > controls, and font-icons disappearing?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Perhaps it should be something like:
>>>>> > "Changing the font-family used to display a web page does not cause
>>>>> loss of
>>>>> > content or functionality."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Anyway, it's past midnight here, g'night!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Alastair
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John Foliot
>>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>
>>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Saturday, 21 January 2017 17:13:36 UTC