RE: Sizing SCs

I totally believe also that personalization is the road to not just accessibility improvements, but other needs as well.

 

However, if the needs are not out there and clearly identified and testable, manufacturers and developers wonott know what they need to be ready to build for. This cannot waituntil Silver to be identified as a need for todays users.

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 4:21 AM
To: 'public-low-vision-a11y-tf' <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Sizing SCs

 

Katie wrote:

> “Feasibility is a part….but…I will say an *ideal* SC would be more around 800 to 100%. These are specifically Low Vision TF SC ideas.

> Again, these requirements are not necessarily about what is achievable today in 2016, it is about driving innovation to meet the real needs..”

 

Let’s keep the ideal in mind (especially for Silver), but we have to acknowledge that the ideal is not wholly achievable whilst the scope is the *Content* guidelines, and especially a dot release of the content guidelines.

 

At a certain point the requirements are better solved at the user-agent end, perhaps with a systematic method of personalization so that sites can co-ordinate with UAs. (Something I wrote about almost 10 years ago, and still believe in [1])


With the right techniques and education around the sizing and reflow SCs, I think there is very good progress to be made from WCAG 2.0, and a good stepping stone to personalization.

 

Cheers,

 

-Alastair (pragmatic) Campbell

 

1] https://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/#profiles