- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:23:28 -0500
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=z1Wncv7=MaTecaFbjs=N4gjiZYbwW0GpdFkoJ8dAcW1XyVg@mail.gmail.com>
Any thoughts LVTF? TPAC is next week. We have the list of items for Silver - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Issues_to_be_addressed_in_Silver There was so much push back on the printing... it is an authoring issue -- if the author can add widths to 100% the problem goes away. That may be a possibility. Others on the list are related to customization and user style sheets - we have individual (moderately formed SCs), and we have the general SC - Element Level Customization <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Element_Level_Customization>. If users have the ability to modify the styles these customizations are possible. This may be a browser issue. The carve outs for browser behaviors (i.e. focus ring, form borders, title attribute) are the most irksome (to me). Tho, I think the solution to them is a browser fix. Native browser rendering should meet WCAG2.1 by default. If the group decides to advocate for removing the carve outs it will be a huge protracted process. We may have a possible SC if there is push back on the Icon Font Technique (yet to be written). At the moment this seem too tenuous to propose as an SC. Any other thought? Jim On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:57 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > Hi Jim (and LVTF), > > > > Pre-TPAC, it would be useful to know if there are any potential SCs you’d > consider for a WCAG 2.2? > > > > We haven’t determined whether the group will tackle that yet, but part of > the decision would be: Is it useful to do a 2.2? > > > > Looking back, I couldn’t see much in the LVTF ‘defer’ list here: > > > https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3ALVTF+label%3ADefer+ > > > > > Printing customised text perhaps? > > > Given the shape of 2.1 now, are there gaps or things to tighten up that > can work in the 2.x structure? > > Perhaps a couple of additional SCs that tighten up current ones? > > > > If there are others that didn’t make it to a github issue in the first > place, now is the time to say so. > > > > I’m not sure who’s attending TPAC, but if there’s a short overview of 1-6 > SCs I can run through them which would be very useful for the discussion. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > -Alastair > > > > -- > > > > www.nomensa.com > tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653 > follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc > Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT > > > > Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411 > -- Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756 voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9452 http://www.tsbvi.edu/ "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:23:32 UTC