Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)

Hi David,

Thank you! Calling out the 3 specific areas is a very good  improvement in
the SC text.

I think removing "CSS"  to be tech agnostic  is a good move. But it is not
the content itself that is the barrier. It is the presentation of the
content. Would replacing "Content" with the "Presentation of content" be
allowable?

Gregg metioned in the mechanism thread that an SC shouldn't be worded to
what a user can or cannot do. Does that rule out John's appoach to
demarcate user and UA roles?

Thank you.

Kindest regards,

Laura

​>In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between what
the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the
end-user needs to do (make personalization choices).​

​I think w​e would need to replace CSS with something more generic, to be
technology agnostic, even though we really might mean "CSS".
​ How about this attempt to combine 74, 78, 79.​

​   "​
The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to allow the
user to change foreground and background colors, font family
​, ​
or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs
​."​

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>

LinkedIn  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to **all** users*

*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
​>In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between what
the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the
end-user needs to do (make personalization choices).​

​I think w​
e would need to replace CSS with something more generic, to be technology
agnostic, even though we really might mean "CSS".
​ How about this attempt to combine 74, 78, 79.​


​   "​
The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to allow the
user to change foreground and background colors, font family
​, ​
or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs
​."​


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:43 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Laura,
>
> Thank you - that appears to be significantly more focused on what the
> author should (or shouldn't) be doing, although I'd still like it to focus
> more on the roles of both author and user:
>
> "Document styling using CSS is created in a way that permits *users* to
> change presentational styling while not causing loss of content or
> functionality. If no mechanism exists to change presentational styling on
> any user agent for the target technology, then the *author* has no
> responsible to
> create one."
>
>
> In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between what
> the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the
> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Laura Carlson <
> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alastair, Patrick and all,
>>
>> Here is an idea.
>>
>> Alastair wrote:
>> > Perhaps it should be something like:
>> > "Changing the font-family used to display a web page does not cause
>> loss of
>> > content or functionality."
>>
>> Since the aim of issue 79 (font [1]), 78 (spacing [2]), and 74 (text
>> color [3]) are so similar in aim why not expand it to cover those too?
>> At one point in the Spacing SC issue Patrick suggested [4]:
>>
>> "...why not generalize the SC so that all sorts of presentational
>> attributes (beyond just spacing) can be changed using user styles or
>> similar? And the failure examples could then include things like
>> !important and style attributes?"
>>
>> Would something such as the following be too wide?
>>
>> "Changing presentational styling does not cause loss of content or
>> functionality."
>>
>> And then adjust Wayne's disclaimer:
>>
>> "If no mechanism exists to change presentational styling on any user
>> agent for the target technology, then the author has no responsible to
>> create one."
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79
>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78
>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/74
>> [4] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-271164347
>>
>> On 1/19/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Wayne,
>> >
>> > I'm not so concerned with whether the user can change the font-family,
>> as
>> > they can.
>> >
>> > It is what issues *come from* changing the font-family that are the
>> problem.
>> > I assume it is things like overlap, wrapping that breaks interactive
>> > controls, and font-icons disappearing?
>> >
>> > Perhaps it should be something like:
>> > "Changing the font-family used to display a web page does not cause
>> loss of
>> > content or functionality."
>> >
>> > Anyway, it's past midnight here, g'night!
>> >
>> > -Alastair
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>