user-adaptation SCs

Hi everyone,

I'd like to wrap up some of the general problems (perceived or otherwise) into one issue we can put to the working group.

User-adaptation is what I'll call it for this email, so I'm referring to the SCs like Reflow, font-family, spacing, and text-colour. Also, there are some COGA SCs as well such as Visual presentation.

Firstly, is it really true that using HTML means you pass these?  Are there things that people can do in HTML that prevent user-adaptation?

If it is true, then does this make sense and do you agree with the way I put the following?
---------------

There are some new SCs (mostly LVTF & COGA) that require authors to allow user-adaptation of content. For example:

"Linearisation: A mechanism is available to view content as a single column, except for parts of the content where the spatial layout is essential to the function and understanding of the content."

NB: The user-benefit for this is that you can go well beyond the 400% required by the new "Resize content" SC, by linearising everything and increasing text size and zoom, and still not having to horizontally scroll.

The "Mechanism is available" aspect is intended to mean that if the user can do that (e.g. with a browser extension with HTML), then using HTML means that you pass.

However, almost everyone's first reaction is "OMG you are requiring onscreen widgets on every website". 

Is there a way we can say "Don't worry, if you're using HTML it's fine", because WCAG 2.0 doesn't seem to have that.

NB: People might assume that these are covered under the current Info and Relationships / Meaningful sequence, however, I understand that these have been interpreted as not applying to low-vision use-cases in WCAG "lore". 

Cheers,

-Alastair

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 20:28:20 UTC