- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:26:37 +0200
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxx7hetSTuo211YS_p1Ukb4KYPJB2s4Tkqap0dwV7-GO8A@mail.gmail.com>
> 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? <example> 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 1.4.4.1 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- 1.4.4.1 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) </example> > 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. +1 JF On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > 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. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 14:27:11 UTC