RE: user-adaptation SCs

> 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.

Requiring a browser extension for certain things like reflow concerns me.  I don't have access to extensions on some devices.    I agree we don't want authors to have to add font controls to every page.  But at the same time I feel like there are just some things with reflow that will be problematic and can fail under HTML if coded wrong.

One example might be a floating bar that is always on the page to provide quick access to some content.    
Another example are snap to pages where the information is in a fixed height frame and when you scroll the information switches to the next page.  
These are HTML examples but things that could potentially fail.  My guess is that there would not be an extension to work around some of the issues.  
So we would have to identify some issues that current don't have user agent support.

In a similar vein SC 1.4.3 Contrast can be solved with style sheets right?  Why have SC 1.4.3 if the user can have a custom style sheet?  I have always stood on the ground that there is some basic level of accessibility that needs to be built in and then there is a deeper level that has to be supported with the user agent or AT such as extension -- and there is a fine line between those two areas -- we need both.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog
See you at CSUN in March!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:28 PM
To: public-low-vision-a11y-tf
Subject: 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 Wednesday, 18 January 2017 02:02:41 UTC