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

Hi Jim and all

Per Andrew's answer to my question below, I have submitted a pull
request for issue 78 so it may be considered in time for the WCAG 2.1
First Public Working Draft.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/124

If needed I can change it per discussion there.

I suggest we get any pull requests that we want considered submitted.

Kindest regards,
Laura

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2017 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration?
To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Joshue O Connor"
<josh@interaccess.ie>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc:

Laura,
There isn’t a firm answer to that question as it depends on how long
it takes to get through ones that are submitted. It is possible that
we could review one a few days after the pull request is completed,
but it is also possible that with the set we already have that we
might not be able to get any more than we already have.

Sorry that there isn’t a simple answer!

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk







On 2/10/17, 14:02, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Andrew Josh and all,
>
>On the WCAG 2.1 timeline [1] it says: "FPWD of WCAG 2.1: February 23, 2017"
>
>When do Success Criteria Managers need to get their pull requests in
>so their SCs can be surveyed and considered prior to the February 23
>deadline?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Kindest Regards,
>Laura
>[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline


On 2/10/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I've updated the SC Wiki page with the new short name [1], SC text
> [2], and tweaked the description [3].
>
> If everyone can live with it, could you please update the GitHub issue
> to match so we can get input from the full AG Working Group?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1]
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Ability_to_Override#SC_Shortname
> [2]
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Ability_to_Override#SC_Text
> [3]
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Ability_to_Override#Description
>
> On 2/10/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Alastair and all,
>>
>> Yes. It certainly seems the discussion is going in circles. I proposed
>> we go with the following with no note:
>>
>> SC Short name:
>> Adapting text
>>
>> SC Text:
>> No loss of content or functionality on a webpage is caused by overriding:
>>
>> 1. font family to Verdana, or
>> 2. foreground and background to white on black, or
>> 3. line height of all text to 1.5, letter spacing to 0.12em, and word
>> spacing to 0.16em.
>>
>> Can anyone not live with that?
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> On 2/10/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>>>> Wayne would like Verdana removed from the SC text and put into the
>>>> testing
>>>> section or a failure technique.
>>>
>>> That is where we started, but Gregg (at least) said if it can’t be
>>> tested
>>> true/false from the SC text, it won’t meet the SC criteria. You can
>>> flesh
>>> things out in the understanding doc, but the SC needs to be a true/false
>>> statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Shawn is concerned about including the note and would like it removed
>>>
>>> I agree, with VIP reader around we don’t have to worry about cross
>>> technology support.
>>> I understand that reader won’t open all PDFs, but neither will Acrobat
>>> reflow all PDFs, and I guess for the same reason?
>>> It is possible to author a document that can open in VIP, that should be
>>> enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jim suggested removing the word "webpage" to take the "technology" out.
>>>
>>> Webpage is the basic unit of WCAG testing, it is listing under
>>> ‘important
>>> terms’ at the top!
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms
>>>
>>>> Wayne suggested taking the hyphens out of line-height, letter-spacing
>>>> and
>>>> word-spacing.
>>>
>>> I guess that reduces the direct reference to CSS, which is probably a
>>> good
>>> thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>> No loss of content or functionality is caused by overriding:
>>>>
>>>> 1. font family, 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.
>>>
>>> If my team tests a page with Verdana and black & white, and another team
>>> tests the same page with “Latin Wide” (or some other very differently
>>> sized
>>> font) and purple and green, we will get different results.
>>>
>>> Not due to subjectivity, but objectively different results.
>>>
>>> Given where these SCs are used (including for lawsuits), I think Gregg
>>> is
>>> right to say we need normative testability.
>>>
>>> If there were some way to state the requirement without a specific
>>> font/color/size value and still have it be testable, that would be
>>> great.
>>> But it has to be a content requirement, not a user-requirement, and that
>>> means specific values.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Alastair
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Sunday, 12 February 2017 13:35:29 UTC