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

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?)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:20:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvfoZfs+N6SdYBq-b_65Y6JoHqv70auVqKbJcCW4RbhnUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "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>, To 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>
Hi Gregg,

By "sufficient techniques for meeting it with all the different
technologies" do you mean we must have not only HTML and PDF
techniques but also:

* Java techniques
* Silverlight techniques
* Flash techniques

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 4/26/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> I think the question is premature until we have
> created sufficient techniques for meeting it with all the different
> technologies
> have proven to ourselves that the technologies will work across all page
> types.
>
> if these are both done -  and the words don’t have to be revised after or as
> part of doing them — then yes.   But without that info - I don’t know the
> answer.
>
> g
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:20:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:35 UTC