W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > October 2016

Re: Combining the sizing SCs

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:23:59 -0400
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <331BA508-4BF8-4D54-99AE-15EA5D72F5B4@raisingthefloor.org>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Hi Katie

Why do you say you want to combine SC as much as possible.   As noted earlier, this causes all sorts of problems. 
what if you meet half but not the other.  How do you report it without confusion.  
you can’t check it as done - because half not done
you can’t not check it or that sounds like neither is true
in the How to Meet    and   Understanding WCAG   docs -  
how do you list techniques as sufficient?   
there may be 3 for one part and 4 options for the other. 
you would need to list 12 combinations to say that any one combination was sufficient? 
or else you create two separate conformance sections with two separate descriptions, rationales, examples, resources etc.  all for the same SC.  
since separating into two this way - why not at the SC level
Also messes up and discussion since you always have to discuss two issues when you talk about an SC

What is the saving in combining?  the advantage? 

I think I am missing something. 

thx 

gregg

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Alistair,
> 
> While this seems like a good idea, remember that 2.1 has to be 100% backwards compatable (in that it will add new things, but all of the old things will still be true), so it may be more complicated to so.
> 
> In other words you would still have to have the Resize SC (with it existing number) and a Resize Text plus Resize Content (with a new number). So it seems best to just make the new idea, Resize Content by itself the new number.
> 
> We *do* want to combine all NEW SC ideas as much as we can, but combining old with a new will be much harder to do, considering our requirements for 2.1.
> 
> Do others agree or disagree that this is consistant with one of the goals of 2.1?
> 
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> 703-371-5545
> 
> 
> On Oct 3, 2016 4:59 AM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m not sure how many people track the github issues, but I added one on Friday about the sizing SCs:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/16 <https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/16>
>  
> 
> It covers the issues that came up at the meeting in TPAC, and proposes a replacement for Sizing All Content & Text-Sizing.
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t have access to editing the LVTF wiki area, but it’s probably best to have a new one and copy over some of the associated text for benefits, techniques etc.
> 
>  
> 
> Is it best to discuss on-list or on-github?
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> -Alastair
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
>  
> 
> Alastair Campbell
> 
>  
> 
> www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com/>
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29117%20929%207333> / 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
> 
Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 14:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:31 UTC