Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74

I think I prefer 11 also... but I like the term "override" which could be
the short handle, here it is with Greggs' friendly amendment.

=====
User
​
override: For web technologies that allow user agents to change any or all
of the following:

​-​
text and background colors,
​-​
font, or
​- ​
spacing between letters, words, lines, or paragraphs,

nothing is done in the content to prevent these changes
​.​
=========

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 Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
wrote:

> I concur on 11
>
>
> 1 , 12, and 13  require the Author to prevent things from happening that
> they have no control over.     There is no restriction on what
> modifications are done — yet they are responsible for the result no
> breaking the content.
>
> with 11 - it only requires that they not prevent the modifications from
> being done.
>
> it WOULD be ok for the Author to be sure that any modification THEY do
> will not break the content — but there are so many ways that a user could
> change things that might break content in ways that an author could not
> predict.
>
> ALSO — there is no way to test whether it is impossible to break the
> content with anything the use could do.  (In fact we have both cited things
> that a user could do that would definitely break the functionality)
>
> so 11 works.
>
>   but others are not testable and not in control of author — for related
> reasons.
>
>
> best
>
> Gregg
>
>
> PS
>
> By the way, you can lower the reading level (calculated) by swapping out a
> few words.
>
> "For web technologies that allow user agents to change any or all of the
> following:
>
>
>    - text and background colors,
>          - font, or
>          - spacing between letters, words, lines, or paragraphs,
>
> nothing is done in the content to prevent these changes."
>
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Laura,
>
> Sorry, I must have missed your initial one, otherwise I’d have referenced
> it!
>
> I have a preference for 12/13, followed by 1 & 11 for several reasons:
>
> - Any SC sentence with more than about 50 words is probably too long and
> needs simplifying or re-structuring. The complexity of including user-agent
> aspects, the technology, mechanisms… makes that difficult.
>
> - If the SC focuses on what the content needs to allow for, then we can
> drop references to mechanisms, user agents etc.
>
> - User-override of the presentation is possible for the “regular” web
> technologies (including PDF), but if we must have an exception I’d like to
> use a Note (similar in concept to 2.1.1 Keyboard) such as Wayne's “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.”
> Update: Like 13, but the second sentence is a note.
>
> - The term “Overriding” is explicit about what is happening, whereas
> “Changing the presentation” isn’t as clear about what the scenario is.
>
> Now onto to Gregg's comments :-)
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>