W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Adapting Text SC: Addressing the main issues

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:17:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvfMRv+0twA7c+tXEeaN8Cgys-VjwvNOgZx8sE5T_1AuUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi all,

On Tuesday's AG call Andrew kindly noted the main issues for the
Adapting Text SC for in the minutes.

1. <AWK> "Applicability to mobile, Flash, Java, etc when user agents
don't support."

In in earlier versions we tried to add exemptions for things that
don't support by adding language to the SC. However, that was
rejected. Bruce said on the March 14 Survey:

"The NOTE belongs to Accessibility Supported, and is harmful if left
with with SC (because then it would be poking Accessibility Supported
in the eye)."

Steve has made a proposal with a subtle change using "WHEN a mechanism
overrides" language. It places no requirement on that mechanism to
even exist. Instead, authors need only be concerned with loss of
content or functionality when the client makes changes.

Steve's idea is Proposal D (4 April 2017)

2. <AWK> conformance being superficial (only one option)

Having one option is not superficial. It does exactly what it needs to
do. It addresses the ability to override. The author has to prove that
each bullet can overridden. That is the test, plain and simple.

3. <Greg> "Ideally we would split this into two SC: Level A to work
when author formatting is overridden, and Level AAA to provide its own
mechanism to override the formatting."

I had an idea for an in tandem 2 SC approach. It is Proposal E and F:

As Steve said, I suspect we will find  for Proposal F there simply
isn't enough research for what a widget should require in fonts, color
combinations, etc. But I have asked Jim  if  LVTF wants to tackle it.

4. <AWK> "Greg's point - perhaps this should be an SC to speak to
non-interference where adaptability is used"

That is what proposal E (as well as the others) is attempting to do.
What we are missing is the understanding doc to add explanations.

Ideas for improvement? Please respond on GitHub with your comments.

Thanks everyone!

Kindest Regards,

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 20:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC