W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Combining SCs

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:26:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxx7hetSTuo211YS_p1Ukb4KYPJB2s4Tkqap0dwV7-GO8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Adding the new one or two specific SC is the best way to go, I believe.

Perhaps, but there is also an additional dynamic at play, and that is that
there are currently 50 newly proposed SC coming from various TFs within the
Working Group, and on more than one occasion during TPAC I heard concerns
over excess bloat of 2.x. Thus any opportunity we have for normalization or
combination of requirements should be looked at quite closely.

Alastair's scenario is a good one, and it is also why I was also focussing
on a good numbering scheme early on. Given his scenario, could we not also
do something like this?


SC 1.4.4 Resize text: Except for captions and images of text, text can be
resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent without loss of
content or functionality. (AA)

SC Resize content: The content of the Web page can be increased to
400 percent without loss of content or functionality, without
bi-directional scrolling, with following the exceptions: (content that has
to be 2D, and mobile user-agents). (A)

-or- Text sizing: Except for images of text, text can be resized without
assistive technology up to the user agent maximum without loss of content
and functionality. (A)


> This isn’t worth spending a lot of time on now, we need to get all the
new SCs in a pot first and boil them down to the essentials, then we can
hash this out.



On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>

> Katie wrote:
> > “Even though C restates with a higher requirement, it is still OK, I
> think, as long as each is testable. Because we can't remove or change 1.4.4
> so an entity would fail in 2.1 for that SC if they passes it in 2.0.”
> I think if we could show that anything passing this 2.1 SC would also pass
> the 2.0 SC, I’d like to be able to replace the original. Apparent
> duplication would make the document harder to understand.
> However, we’re a little way off that decision point, we need to go through
> the process of agreeing the new ones first…
> Cheers,
> -Alastair

John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 14:27:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC