Re: Issue 78 SC text (was Re: Post-Minutes update)

Hi Alastair and all,

Hey, no need to apologize. I really appreciated your email.

Several points came up in the Low Vision Task Force call yesterday.

Wayne would like Verdana removed from the SC text and put into the
testing section or a failure technique.

Shawn is concerned about including the note and would like it removed
because VIP PDF reader (a desktop application) [2] won't open all PDFs
and because the current wording has no requirement for authors to
provide content in a technology that allows users to change font,
color, spacing. I take it to be a message to authors: "Don't use
PDFs". My concern about removing the note would be push back from
mobile.

Jim suggested removing the word "webpage" to take the "technology" out.

Wayne suggested taking the hyphens out of line-height, letter-spacing
and word-spacing.

If we made all of those changes the SC text would read:

No loss of content or functionality is caused by overriding:

1. font family, or
3. foreground and background to a single different foreground color
and a single different background color, or
3. line height of all text to 1.5, letter spacing to 0.12em, and word
spacing to 0.16em.

Thoughts?

For the pull request I am leaning to taking hyphens out leaving the
rest as is currently in the GitHub issue because the other changes are
very likely to be rejected by the full working group resulting in the
SC not getting in the First Public Working Draft.

As for the name selection no one has expressed much of an interest
except you and Jim. I am fine with either of them. Unless others have
opinions soon I will probably just flip a coin :-)

I'd like to get the pull request in fairly soon as it would be good
for the full working group to consider both Lisa's pull request #113
and the one for this SC at the same time.

Thank you!

Kindest regards,
Laura

[1] http://jvi.sagepub.com/content/25/2/13
[2] http://snab.ch/en/hilfsmittel/digital-tools/the-first-pdf-reader-for-visually-impaired-people/

--
Laura L. Carlson

On Feb 10, 2017 7:38 AM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Laura,
>
>
>
> Sorry for the ranty email, it was getting a late and I rushed it.
>
>
>
> I’m fairly happy with the SC text, and from the discussion there doesn’t seem to be much push back on it. Have I missed some?
>
>
>
> Given the feedback & work from Greg and David, they gave it a good vetting from a WCAG suitability point of view.
>
>
>
> The main thing is to get *something* reasonable in place, and get the testing process happening. That is what will drive the Techniques and failures that justify the SC. It will also show whether the spacing values are too much, or fine, or could be pushed further.
>
>
>
> Is the next step to choose the name and get a pull request in?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, 10 February 2017 at 13:30
> To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Cc: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Issue 78 SC text (was Re: Post-Minutes update)
>
>
>
> Hi Alastair,
>
> Thank you very much for your email and reading yesterday's minutes. We missed you at the meeting.
>
> What would you think the issue 78 SC text should be? On GitHub it currently reads:
>
> No loss of content or functionality on a webpage is caused by overriding:
>
> 1. font family to Verdana, or
>
> 2. foreground and background to a single different foreground color and a single different background color, or
>
> 3.  line-height of all text to 1.5, letter-spacing to 0.12em, and word-spacing to 0.16em.
>
> Note: If no mechanism exists to override these items on any user agent for the target technology, then the author has no responsibility to create one.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Laura
>
> On Feb 9, 2017 7:25 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm sorry I couldn't be there, but when reviewing the minutes we seem to be going back over old ground again? I'll try and keep this short...
>>
>> I'm not aware of much push back against the need to avoid horizontal scrolling, regarding Resize and Linearise:
>> - The only issue left on Resize content is how to deal with IDE type interfaces, so I'm working on an exception or subtle language change for that.
>> - There is some push back on the mechanism of linearisation, not the need. I.e. if a user over-rides the layout, what does the author need to do? That is a good question, I've outlined that we need to get the SC into the draft, and then work on testing that leads to techniques & failures.
>>
>> Regarding the "ability to override", everyone needs to understand this:
>>
>> A USER REQUIREMENT IS NOT A CONTENT REQUIREMENT.
>>
>> (Sorry for shouting, I'm in a plain text interface, no bold available.)
>>
>> So if the SC states "The user can override X", that is always true because the user CAN override it. Does that mean it won't break and become unusable? No.
>> That approach does not work in WCAG 2.x.
>>
>> It has to go the next step, and say: if you do X to the content, it is still usable & readable.
>>
>> And in this case X has to be specified, which is where Verdana, the EM sizes and the black & white came in. That doesn't mean that LV people will use those values, but the issues *triggered* by over-riding font/colour/spacing will be triggered by that test.
>>
>> The second issue is how much things like spacing can be pushed. I'm sure anyone who has tried overriding the spacing has run into issues where things overlap or layouts fall apart.
>>
>> If the values for spacing are greater than what can be accommodated in the 'normal' layout of most sites, it moves into the realm of personalisation, or linearisation where you completely override the layout anyway.
>>
>> So a conversation about the 'best' or 'largest' word/letter spacing values is irrelevant, because either it fits within regular layouts (which need to allow for *some* variation because of different display of fonts, internationalisation and other factors), or you deal with it as a personalisation issue, in which case it is not a content requirement.
>>
>> This approach of enabling the user to override the presentation (and requiring testing of it) is new for WCAG, and there is a lot of work to do to prove that it is feasible, see this long thread on that approach and the push back: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/89 (That's linearise, but the same applies to override.)
>>
>> If an SC requires personalisation, I have my doubts that it will get into 2.1. Maybe 2.2 or silver, but it needs the user-agent end to be ready in the same timeline.
>>
>> That is why I'd rather work on the override approach, because it can work sooner, and the work to test it will be a good building block for personalisation later anyway.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Alastair

Received on Friday, 10 February 2017 15:40:27 UTC