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

Re: Should we drop the color bullet for now?

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:35:43 +0000
To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
CC: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AFA78CFD-AE49-4752-8B9D-3991FAFBD462@nomensa.com>
I think we are still bumping up against a failure to translate user-requirements to content-requirements.

Let’s try to make that explicit in what we’re doing, I’ll start off a list of user requirements, issues found for those, and then resulting content requirements.

User requirements (for text-adaptation) are the ability to:

-         Change the font-family to your preference.

-         Change the foreground/background colours for text.

-         Increase the spacing for text by letter/word/paragraph.

-         Perceive non-text images that are used instead of text (e.g. icons used for buttons)

Let’s assume the user can select text-adaptations via a browser extension.

The issues found when that is done are:
-         Unreadable text (either wrapping out of the containing box, or causing boxes to overlap) when a large font-family is selected and/or increased spacing is applied to text for some layouts.
-         Un-clickable links, when a large font-family is selected and/or increased spacing is applied to text for some layouts.
-         Icons can become unreadable when colours are changed when they are background-images.
-         Font-icons disappear when font-family is overridden.

The content requirements could then be (straw man examples):

-         Allow for a 10% buffer on text size within a layout (where the SC text currently is).

-         Use foreground (HTML) image methods such as img / svg, or

o   Identify background images that are content semantically so they can be ignored by the user-agent changes

Those two content-requirements (3 if you include the fall-back option) cover the identified issues without talking about the font & color user requirements at all. That is a good thing, assuming there are not missing issues.

I’ve put these in a wiki page:

Please do add other user-requirements and issues (in the scope of the original SC). If we can’t point to issues we can’t translate them to content requirements.

For example, a user requirement might be to turn off full-justification, which users can do via CSS/extensions. If that doesn’t create any issues there is no point having an SC about it!


Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 10:36:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 April 2017 10:36:28 UTC