W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Subtle change to Adapting Text

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:37:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvey_BwrqHNGcQi0dCN-g0CSMHVoZaXy-XOEJnGFvrxWbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Steve and all,

The mechanism wording gets extreme push back [1] [2][3]. I doubt we
would ever get consensus on it at AA.

I am thinking of pursuing the 2 SC idea that was proposed on today's
AG call [4]. Jason White had previously mentioned it [5]. We would
have 2 Adapting Text SC's. One at level AA. And one at level AAA.

* For AA we could use the current language, which is Proposal C with
maybe a minor tweak or 2.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-290810047

* For AAA we could your mechanism language for the first sentence or
something close to it.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291567555

Thoughts?

Thank again, Steve. Much appreciated.

Kindest Regards,
Laura


[1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-268626340
[2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-268651663
[3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-269208353
[4] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-ag-minutes.html#item06
[5] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-289516216




On 4/4/17, 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

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 19:38:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:34 UTC