Re: user-adaptation SCs

Hi Alastair and all,

I think combining Reflow, font-family, spacing,  text-color and COGA's
Visual presentation SC into one user-adaptation SC a good idea. We may
have discussed that before. I know Wayne had recently mentioned a
union model. At one point Patrick even mentioned in the Spacing GitHub
Issue to generalized and combine saying:

"...why not generalise the SC so that all sorts of presentational
attributes (beyond just spacing) can be changed using user styles or
similar?..."

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 1/17/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 21:12:24 UTC