W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Prohibiting authors from disabling Pinch Zoom as failure for Reflow 1.4.10

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:36:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZDP+oNS2M2gE8Dx01CAmMK8WoYzkADddbhOdFMezYSMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
> conformance as we've discussed it so far doesn't mandate that you need to
use the methods outlined by Silver as recommended for meeting a guideline,
so you can create your own methods to do so

I'm assuming that if an author creates their own method, it would be
necessary to be able to demonstrate that it works for users and meets the
need articulated in the guideline.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

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 Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:59 AM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com> wrote:

> I would have thought that a in a conformance statement you would need to
>> specify which methods you are relying on, and those could include
>> user-agent end methods.
>
>
> Yep! But conformance as we've discussed it so far doesn't mandate that you
> need to use the methods outlined by Silver as recommended for meeting a
> guideline, so you can create your own methods to do so. Silver would,
> however, recommend methods (as available) to meet a guideline.
>
> -Shawn
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 7:40 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > Identify Input Purpose
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#identify-input-purpose> doesn't include
>> anything about user need, only requiring that "The purpose of each input
>> field collecting information about the user *can be programmatically
>> determined*…"
>>
>> Indeed, it would be quite a big change going from content-based
>> requirement to user-need based requirements.
>>
>> [emphasis mine], which opens up the ability for developers to meet the
>> guidance by using a method where we don't have a list of assistive tech
>> making use of it.
>>
>> In a WCAG 2.x context that SC wouldn’t have been included if there was no
>> assistive tech available, but in Silver I wouldn’t (necessarily) assume
>> that would be the same?
>>
>> If you lead with a user-requirement as the ‘guideline’, then it’s easier
>> to show gaps.
>>
>> E.g. “User does not have to remember personal information when filling in
>> forms”, has methods including browser-tools and autocomplete. You get an
>> interesting set of levels because:
>>
>>    - A browser can fill in some fields without ‘autocomplete’ included
>>    because it has heuristics, but those can be thrown off by the content (e.g.
>>    random label names).
>>    - The browser tools are more reliable with autocomplete, and that’s
>>    the authors responsibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> > what level of support would "graduate" a method to recommended for
>> meeting a guideline and how we might do so in the most effective way.
>>
>> I would have thought that a in a conformance statement you would need to
>> specify which methods you are relying on, and those could include
>> user-agent end methods.
>>
>> Perhaps also specify some at the different levels, e.g. bronze for
>> relying on browser heuristic, silver for also using autocomplete.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2019 21:36:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:57 UTC