Re: Anything for a possible 2.2?

This is excellent.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:53 AM Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jim and all,
>
> I suspect  that the most of the list of items we have for Silver would
> not be accepted in a  2.2. I'm not sure about printing.
>
> The Icon Font Draft is written and in the Wiki at:
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Providing_a_Semantically_Identified_Icon_Font_with_role%3Dimg
>
> If anyone wants to port it over to GitHub, the placeholder is at:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/blob/tech-icon-font-img-role/techniques/aria/icon-font-img-role.html
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 10/17/18, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>