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

>But it is not the content itself that is the barrier.

​WCAG's definition of content includes the way it's laid out.

"content (Web content)
information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means
of a user agent <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef>, including
code or markup that defines the content's structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef>, *presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#presentationdef>*, and interactions"​

But if the group would rather be more specific to help the audience better
understand, I'm fine with "Presentation of content" for the first draft.

>>an SC shouldn't be worded to what a user can or cannot do.

Exactly.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

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 Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 21 January 2017 13:26:52 UTC