- From: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:15:35 +0100
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <C2D55199-1BA5-4FE3-99E7-23FFD7EE82C2@cae.wisc.edu>
From discussions at the time if you can do with with style sheets — then you would (clearly) violate it if you didn’t. If you are using HTML and can’t do what you want with style sheets (or some other available and supported styling/programmatically-determinable technology — then the exception would apply Gregg > On Jan 20, 2015, at 8:17 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: > > SC 1.4.5 indicates exceptions can be made when technology being used cannot achieve the desired visual presentation. I wanted to know other people’s thoughts on whether the technology delivery mechanism may also be a factor taken into account. > > For example, many retail sites contain internal and vendor supplied product advertisements. These materials may be delivered to a client as images. Other times the client simply wants a promotion code or teaser to appear in a certain way. How much flexibility is actually allowed in meeting the success criteria. Would we need to evaluate the font face, anti-aliasing, and all of the factors discussed. Put another way what information would need to be collected to provide proof that the technology available could not be used to achieve the desired visual presentation. > > Best Regards, > > Jonathan > > -- > Jonathan Avila > Chief Accessibility Officer > SSB BART Group > jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> > Phone 703.637.8957 > Follow us: Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/#!/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter <http://eepurl.com/O5DP>
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 23:16:05 UTC