RE: Support as an SC prefix?

If the proposal is to change only titles, then I think it is a matter of getting over the sticker shock of the new criteria, and ultimately the word "support" should not be added as all other criteria have names which are nouns, not command sentences.

If we're talking about changing the actual criteria text, then I would raise 2 additional points regarding consistency.  First, maintaining statements of fact would necessitate language such as "Support is available", so we'd just be discussing the value of the word support over mechanism.

On the latter, "mechanism" may not be the absolute best word, but it is well-established throughout 2.0 with a clear definition that the author is not necessarily fully liable and links to several other definitions.  Drawing a distinction between this and support raises more inconsistency in my opinion.  For example, a developer can satisfy Bypass Blocks (2.4.1) by marking headings and landmarks, or Abbreviations (3.1.4) by using the <abbr> element.  In both cases, they are providing "support" for the mechanism, but the user agent finishes off the full mechanism support.  At least for the linearization criterion, there's really no difference - just help the mechanism work properly.

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Support as an SC prefix?

Hi Alastair and all,

Interesting idea regarding having a prefix or some other indicator that a widget is not required. It would be great to alleviate that misconception.

But I'm not sure if "support" is the right word. Why wouldn't  an on-screen widget be considered support?

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 3/8/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There is an interesting point raised on github for the SCs which are 
> aimed at authors enabling something without (necessarily) adding 
> on-screen
> widgets:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/159#issuecomment-285020097

>
> “Maybe the use of the "Support" prefix would be a useful standard to 
> set for the SC titles if an on-screen widget is not required, so that 
> in this case it would be "Support Reflow to Single Column", just as we 
> have "Support Personalization".
> This would also suggest a rename of 1.4.13 to "Support Printing", for 
> example.”
>
> It would be an alternative to the “mechanism is available” language, 
> hopefully leading people away from assuming there would be on-screen 
> widgets.
>
> If that were taking on, I think it would lead to:
>
> ·         Support linearization (Or ‘Support reflow to single column’)
>
> ·         Support printing (Or ‘Support adaptations when printing’ might be
> more accurate.)
>
> ·         Support adapting text
>
> ·         Support extra symbols.
>
> And possibly others from COGA that didn’t make it to the FPWD.
>
> So two questions:
>
> 1.       Do you think this approach is helpful? And if so,
>
> 2.       Is “support” the right prefix?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653 follow us: @we_are_nomensa or 
> me: @alastc Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol 
> BS1 4NT
>
> Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411
>


--
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2017 16:32:51 UTC