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

RE: Adapting Text SC: Addressing the main issues

From: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:55:40 +0000
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
CC: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b165769991184418839ae6dff8b99e3a@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
For completeness, here is the link to proposal G which is even more explicit about the user doing the overriding and attempts a less permissive exception for lack of technology support:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-292222640


Thanks to Laura for updating it with proper links and combining text and background color.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:03 AM
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Adapting Text SC: Addressing the main issues

Hi Gregg and all,

Thank you very much. We have wrestled with both 1 and 2. I appreciate you stating it so clearly.

For #1, the current proposals [1] [2] [3] do not have notes.

Jon, has an idea to address #2 regarding scoping.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-292161456


If anyone has comments please reply on GitHub. Ideas for improvement are most welcome.

Kindest Regards,
Laura
[1] Proposal C
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-290810047


[2] Proposal D
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291618718


[3] Proposal E & F
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-290810047


On 4/5/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
> couple of comments.
>
> 1)  NOTES can only explain - not add or subtract or exempt from an SC.   So
> there should be no note about anything being exempt from the SC if the 
> language is not specifically in the SC.
>
> 2) If an SC cannot be applied everywhere — or can only be applied for 
> some technologies — then the SC MUST include something that scopes the 
> SC to only apply where it should - or the SC fails applicability.
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Laura Carlson 
>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Tuesday's AG call Andrew kindly noted the main issues for the 
>> Adapting Text SC for in the minutes.
>>
>> 1. <AWK> "Applicability to mobile, Flash, Java, etc when user agents 
>> don't support."
>>
>> In in earlier versions we tried to add exemptions for things that 
>> don't support by adding language to the SC. However, that was 
>> rejected. Bruce said on the March 14 Survey:
>>
>> "The NOTE belongs to Accessibility Supported, and is harmful if left 
>> with with SC (because then it would be poking Accessibility Supported 
>> in the eye)."
>>
>> Steve has made a proposal with a subtle change using "WHEN a 
>> mechanism overrides" language. It places no requirement on that 
>> mechanism to even exist. Instead, authors need only be concerned with 
>> loss of content or functionality when the client makes changes.
>>
>> Steve's idea is Proposal D (4 April 2017)
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291618718

>>
>> 2. <AWK> conformance being superficial (only one option)
>>
>> Having one option is not superficial. It does exactly what it needs 
>> to do. It addresses the ability to override. The author has to prove 
>> that each bullet can overridden. That is the test, plain and simple.
>>
>> 3. <Greg> "Ideally we would split this into two SC: Level A to work 
>> when author formatting is overridden, and Level AAA to provide its 
>> own mechanism to override the formatting."
>>
>> I had an idea for an in tandem 2 SC approach. It is Proposal E and F:
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-291918379

>>
>> As Steve said, I suspect we will find  for Proposal F there simply 
>> isn't enough research for what a widget should require in fonts, 
>> color combinations, etc. But I have asked Jim  if  LVTF wants to tackle it.
>>
>> 4. <AWK> "Greg's point - perhaps this should be an SC to speak to 
>> non-interference where adaptability is used"
>>
>> That is what proposal E (as well as the others) is attempting to do.
>> What we are missing is the understanding doc to add explanations.
>>
>> Ideas for improvement? Please respond on GitHub with your comments.
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78

>>
>> Thanks everyone!
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson

--
Laura L. Carlson


Received on Thursday, 6 April 2017 18:56:24 UTC

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