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: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:58:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQw2hkfmbfn01dtV40MvCDkxS7yTTsRh=fyBJamP-s-0xScbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
David,

Exactly. If someone wants to put together a conformance claim and they've
used a method not included in Silver, they'd need to explain how that
method meets the same user need and guidance.

-Shawn

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:36 PM David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> > 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 21:59:10 UTC

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