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

My thinking was that the SC only says "don't interfere ..."

If a technology doesn't have this ability then there is no further
requirement on the author ...

If I'd say " don't interfere with my ability to eat dinner when you deliver
the dish washer..." I'm not requiring that the movers bring dinner...

Am I missing something?


On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ø
>
>  But not if not.   I don’t think we want an SC at AA that can only be met
> with HTML or an expensive add on.
>
>
>
>
>
> Saying we can’t require something for HTML that can be done in HTML
> because other types of content don’t support it isn’t helpful.  That’s like
> saying some
>
> buildings can’t have ramps built to the doors so no buildings have to have
> ramps built to the door.   SC 4.1.1 was scoped to markup languages and this
> new SC could be scoped in such a way that it isn’t applicable when the
> presentation can’t be controlled.
>
>   We shouldn’t hold back access on the most common form of web content.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Avila
>
>
> Chief Accessibility Officer
>
>
> SSB BART Group
>
>
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>
>
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Visit us online:
>
> Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> |
>
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> |
>
> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> |
>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> |
>
> Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
>
>
> *See you at CSUN in March!
> <http://info.ssbbartgroup.com/CSUN-2017_Sessions.html>*
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu]
>
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:42 PM
>
>
> *To:* Laura Carlson
>
>
> *Cc:* Jim Allan; Dick; John Foliot; Alastair Campbell; David MacDonald;
> public-low-vision-a11y-tf; Patrick H. Lauke; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Laura,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Very useful info.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Question:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You said that
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "*It has been reported by Jim Allan and members of the Low Vision Task
> Force (LVTF) that Acrobat DC and VIP PDF Reader provide support*.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Are these available as browser plug ins?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    If most browsers provide these as free plug ins  — then you might
>    consider this ‘supported by common browsers” thought normally we haven’t
>    considered plug ins as browser support one could assume.
>    -
>
>    If they don’t act as plug ins — then you don’t have any browser
>    support — so it would have to be AAA.  (though I would love to have browser
>    support and have it at AA !)
>    -
>
>    If these are not free - but expensive products - then I also don’t
>    think an author could assume they would be in place on most user’s
>    browsers.   so..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now if these capabilities could be a default feature in the default
> browsers (or maybe even if added as part of a free PDF reader install) then
> I can easily see this SC (and would love to see this SC) as AA.  But not if
> not.   I don’t think
>
> we want an SC at AA that can only be met with HTML or an expensive add on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PS  ( are there any videos demonstrating how these products (*Acrobat DC
> and VIP PDF Reader)  *allow adjustment of all the capabilities in the SC?
>   ( i.e.   Font, line spacing, word spacing etc)    Love to see them.   We
> are working
>
> (via OCAD) on a free tool that will do these for HTML.   So would like to
> see these in action on PDF.   Also always interested in anything in this
> domain.  So badly needed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>
>
>
>
>
>
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
>
> Thank you for your Email and questions.
>
>
> It has been reported by Jim Allan and members of the Low Vision Task Force
> (LVTF) that Acrobat DC and VIP PDF Reader provide support.
>
>
> The level is an open question and has been debated. We don't have
> consensus yet on that point. All 3 of the original SC levels were submitted
> at AA. Most commenters on Github would
>
> like AAA. At least one person from the LVTF stated it is a solid AA for
> many people.
>
>
> There has been discussion in the LVTF to have an exception for UAs that do
> not provide support. Hence Wayne's mechanism disclaimer thread.
>
>
> As for techniques Alastair is working on a solution ala his bookmarklet.
> Wayne has proposed: "Never use !important for online settings..." PDF
> techniques haven't been discussed.
>
> Perhaps Jim could add that to Thursday's LVTF agenda?
>
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
> Laura
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2017 12:26 PM, "Gregg C Vanderheiden" <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2017, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "​The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agent's
> ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font
> family​, ​or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs​
> to the element level,
>
> for the full range of values allowed by the user agent​."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -  This is an appropriate use of the word user - since is isn't about what
> a user can do - but what the user is allowed to do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - But I worry about the constraints here.    What level was this going at?
>     This would look to outlaw any use of PDF even though we have PDF
> techniques — since PDF doesn’t allow these things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also any other technology that does not have a CSS like markup.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - is 2.1 moving to an HTML only web page approach?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - or does    "for the full range of values allowed by the user agent​.”
>  mean that if the user agent can’t make these changes (e.g. for PDF) then
> the content passes without doing any of these things?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - I see no problem with something like this at AAA  but wouldn’t putting
> it at A or AA limit the application of 2.1 to HTML or markup languages.  I
> might be wrong here - so this is a question rather than an assertion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - As before — Do you have sufficient techniques for meeting this SC with
> different technologies?   That was one of the key tests we always used when
> creating a new SC in 2.0.   That would clarify what this means and what is
> possible and
>
> which technologies can be used.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Would there be a sufficient technique for this SC for PDF?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>
>
>
>
>
>
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>