RE: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?)

I could live with this.....

​​​​​* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog

NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.


-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 7:49 AM
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>; Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>; Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?)

Hi Gregg and everyone,

I'll ask this question again in a slightly different manner:

Are you or anyone else not able to live with the following for the Adapting Text SC's intro sentence?

"Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality." (Then the bullet list).

Kindest regards,
Laura


On 4/24/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Quite a few are listed on the options page [1] for instance, the last 
> one at AA  is Option L:
>
> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can 
> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or 
> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>
> If you can't live with that particular one, Is there any proposal on 
> that page, that doesn't have the "technology being used" language that 
> you could live with?
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
>
> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>> Sorry
>>
>> Can you include the current wording for the SC you are asking about?
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Laura Carlson 
>>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>
>>> So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you 
>>> live without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Kindest Regards,
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid.
>>>>
>>>> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have 
>>>> it or the SC will fail general applicability.
>>>>
>>>> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but  in the 
>>>> exploration of
>>>> specific SC.   For the most part - that has not been necessary.
>>>>
>>>> And discussion of specific SC are underway now.
>>>>
>>>> But if you have a blanket  “we will never use this”  then you might 
>>>> block some SC(s) from being able to get in at all.
>>>>
>>>> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by 
>>>> case basis.
>>>>    It is not needed by most all but may be needed by one or another.
>>>> So
>>>> lets see.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> g
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J 
>>>>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language 
>>>>> that gives an author power to simply skip over an SC just because 
>>>>> they use a technology with poor accessibility support.  Any 
>>>>> exceptions should have clear restrictions and backup accessibility 
>>>>> support (as does "Images of Text", for example).  For WCAG 2.1, 
>>>>> with or without the language is probably not the question.  
>>>>> Rather, what is the compromising language for now until we get to 
>>>>> Silver?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which 
>>>>> web technologies are "major", but in order to talk about 
>>>>> future-proofing we need to discuss responsibility.  And currently, 
>>>>> the responsibility chain has a very weak link from author to user 
>>>>> that is only going to get more important to strengthen as we talk 
>>>>> about adaptation, linearization, personalization, and other needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web 
>>>>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards.  
>>>>> The WCAG buck stops there obviously in its current form.  The 
>>>>> problem is that even if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, 
>>>>> trying to remain technology-agnostic would result in the same core 
>>>>> issue: no responsibility is formally placed on web technology 
>>>>> developers (at least not outside the W3C).  If we really want to 
>>>>> produce guidelines which are both independent of current 
>>>>> technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are going to have 
>>>>> to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with 
>>>>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or 
>>>>> otherwise conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines).
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM
>>>>> To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Gregg C 
>>>>> Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
>>>>> Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick 
>>>>> <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; 
>>>>> Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; To Henry 
>>>>> <shawn@w3.org>; Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>; Glenda Sims 
>>>>> <glenda.sims@deque.com>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; 
>>>>> public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>>>>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if 
>>>>> that SC has support in 2 technologies?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
>>>>>> If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used"
>>>>>> language
>>>>>> on all of our SCs?
>>>>> [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at all.
>>>>> I
>>>>> think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used 
>>>>> to meet WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies 
>>>>> in use today, I think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier,
>>>>> HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to 
>>>>> HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+consider
>>>>> at
>>>>> the moment.
>>>>> Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in 
>>>>> mind, and WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do 
>>>>> agree with Gregg that major user interface revolutions may well be 
>>>>> coming, but they need to be based on implementation technologies 
>>>>> that adequately support accessibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain 
>>>>> privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by 
>>>>> the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed 
>>>>> incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify 
>>>>> the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action 
>>>>> in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it 
>>>>> from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your compliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>


--
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 14:32:58 UTC