Re: Subtle change to Adapting Text

Steve,
I like this wording. LV will be having a call starting 30 min. before the
AG call on Thursday. Then we will adjourn to the AG call. I have added it
to the agenda.



On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> I posted this comment to the GitHub issue, but I wanted to also share here
> to perhaps get quick LVTF consensus before any additional discussion
> Thursday.  What do you think?
>
>
>
> “I'd like to suggest new compromised wording to address the following
> concerns:
>
> • No client-support for full adaptation (e.g. mobile)
>
> • Potential requirement to create a widget (or otherwise make the content
> author responsible for the actual adaptation)
>
> • Consistency with language and wider applicability of WCAG 2.0
>
> How about we change:
>
>
>
> Each of the following text styles of the page can be overridden with no
> loss of essential content or functionality.
>
>
>
> To
>
>
>
> No loss of essential content or functionality occurs when a mechanism
> overrides any of the following text styles:
>
>
>
> Basically, we directly make it about what does or does not happen when
> simple adaptations are made, and require nothing about where that
> adaptation comes from. If all browsers, assistive technologies, platform
> settings, etc. suddenly stopped supporting the usual ways low vision folks
> accomplish this, developers could still meet this SC.”
>
>
>
> PS – I also commented about where MathML content fits in here.  Some
> styles are not applicable (e.g. font or word-spacing), but others are
> important (e.g. color).  Any thoughts there would also be appreciated.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>



-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964