Re: user-adaptation SCs

Jonathan Avila wrote:
> Requiring a browser extension for certain things like reflow concerns me.

This gets to people’s confusion between “Resize content” and “Linearise” (formerly reflow).

You don’t need a browser extension to “reflow” up to 400%, via the Resize content SC.

However, to get *past* that amount does require something beyond a default browser setup. It could be a bookmarklet (i.e. locally saved JS), a browser extension, a user-stylesheet, or a different browser with settings more customisable than the popular browsers.


> I feel like there are just some things with reflow that will be problematic and can fail under HTML if coded wrong.

Ah, right, this is what we need to dig into more thoroughly then.


> One example might be a floating bar that is always on the page to provide quick access to some content.    

Under Resize content (up to 400% on desktop) that would be ok if it doesn’t block access to content / functionality. For Linearise (under user-control) the floating could be killed-off by the user. (Whether that blocks access to the functionality is another question.)


> 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.  

I’m not sure I’ve seen that, do you have an example to hand? 


> So we would have to identify some issues that current don't have user agent support.

Indeed, if it is not an “HTML pass” situation, then these SCs will be at risk until we can draw that line.


> 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.

I agree, but in order to have good SCs and be in a position to create techniques, we need to know where the line is.

Cheers,

-Alastair

Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2017 11:52:51 UTC