Re: user-adaptation SCs

Hi Alastair and all,

That has been my assumption too. But it would be good if our user style
sheet users correct that assumption if it is wrong.

Kindest regards,

Laura
On Jan 17, 2017 5:50 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> Hi Laura,
>
> That's good, but fairly different from my question!
>
> I think there's a key question, sorry if this is resolved in everyone
> else's mind, but I'm doubting assumption at the moment:
>
> * Is it the intention that using HTML automatically (or close to
> automatically) passes the user-adaption SCs?
>
> If yes (my assumption), then we should try combining them. However, we
> still need a way to say using HTML passes which is clearer than "a
> mechanism exists" - thus my question to the list.
>
> If not, if there are things authors need to do in HTML, then we will
> quickly need to define some techniques to demonstrate what it is authors
> need to do.  Combining would be very difficult.
>
> My worry is that we have good requirements, but I'm not clear where the
> dividing line is between what we are expecting the user (+agent) to do, and
> what the author needs to do.
>
> When discussing the Resize & Linearise SCs the key differentiation is
> whether you assume the user has completely overridden the styles. If not
> (Resize), we're looking at 400% under the authors styling. If so
> (Linearise), you can get to a greater text without horizontal scrolling,
> but it is largely out of the authors control.
>
> Adjusting font-family & spacing could quite easily create layout issues
> which are difficult to deal with within a well (or at least tightly)
> designed layout. But if we are assuming that the user is completely
> over-riding styles, it isn't a problem.
>
> Is that the assumption?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> Sent: 17 January 2017 21:11
> To: Alastair Campbell
> Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf
> Subject: 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
>