- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:10:54 -0600
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Lisa Seeman <lseeman@us.ibm.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Lisa, Interesting. Are you thinking of adding attributes for low vision that would address 79, 78, and 74 such as: lowvision-fontfamily lowvision-foreground lowvision-background lowvision-lineheight lowvision-letterspacing lowvision-wordspacing Thank you! Kindest regards, Laura On 1/30/17, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > Hi Alistair and Low Vision task force > > We are working on a full personalization architecture and will have a free > browser extension > > We will have a specification for both the semantics and the personalization > settings https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/ it is under the > aria working group. > A first open implementation is at > https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation and there is a demo at > http://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html > IBM and Pearson are saying they intend also to implement it (although > clearly I can not commit for either of them by CR it should have at least 2 > implementations ) > > Should someone from the low vision task force coordinate with me to ensure > LV personalization settings are fully addressed? > > Also than you can add personalization as a technique. This makes it much > easier to make it widely applicable. > > We are addressing the testing burden by having a maximum of 5 recommended > settings per user setting. So developers can test all recomended settings by > testing against 5 templates. > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn, Twitter > > > > > > ---- On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:16:54 +0200 Alastair > Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ---- > > Hi everyone, > > Thinking about the(se) adaptation Success Criteria, I really think the > process is more important than the SC text at this stage. > > As I outlined before: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/0418.html > > I think we need an *open* process to test the limits of what a user-side > script or extension can do, to find out what authors can reasonably do. > > These things are not new, the Opera browser used to have user-stylesheets > that adjusted colours, layouts etc. There are extensions now that pull out > content and re-format it. But there is no standard, no one has tried to > define it in an open way. > > We need to have a preliminary requirement (SC text), then test, write and > test again. > > If we don’t have an initial stake in the ground (of the SC text) then there > is no point putting the effort into testing and writing techniques, but if > we do, we have a plan and the SC text can be modified later based on the > results. > > Cheers, > > -Alastair > > > > > > > > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 13:11:27 UTC