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?)

Laura, assuming we're still splitting Adapting Text into two SC, were you intending this sentence for the Level A, the Level AAA, or both?

-------- Original Message --------
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?)
From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
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>
Date: 4/25/2017 3:49 AM
> 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
>>