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

Dear Alastair,
If you wonder why the people with low vision are so skeptical of narrow SCs
when what we need is flexibility, it is because of SCs like 1.4.4. Resize
Text. Sites literally break at 225%. We know well that normative language
is what becomes law. Putting single point conformance in an SC is
dangerous. It is the FPWD so let's get it there. If single point normative
language is all we can get in 2.1, so be it.

Thank You again for your work.

Wayne

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Wayne.
>
> The pull request is:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/124
>
> I hope it goes into this week's survey.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Laura
>
> On 2/13/17, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can live with the wording you proposed Alastair, we all can. We
> > appreciate your negotiations.
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, 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
>