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

Re: Adapting Text proposals for next week's survey. (was Re: Adding Greg L's Adapting Text proposals to the Wiki in anticipation of a vote between J&K and H&I)

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:50:26 -0400
Message-Id: <954A0242-4CDA-4C75-9E48-982B9D330FB9@umd.edu>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> On Apr 14, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gregg,
> 
> Replies inline
> 
>> just replace  IT with what IT means.
> 
> Can you suggest text that everyone can live with?

I don’t have the language in front of me — but what do you mean by IT?   Just put that in place of the word

> 
>>> Lets' find out what happens with Proposal L&M on the survey.
>> 
>> I think we are slipping backwards.  I thought we resolved this before but …
>> 
>> 
>> the language
>> Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be
>> overridden as follows with no loss of essentialcontent or functionality.
>> assumes that all technologies allow this -  and therefore outlaws all
>> technologies that do not.
>> 
>> So anything that doesn’t have style sheets or similar mechanism will not be
>> able to conform to 2.1?
>> 
>> or am I missing something?
> 
> As Bruce pointed out, it goes to accessibility support.

That is not the meaning of accessibility support.      If the author cannot do it because there is no way to do it with the technology they are using — then it means that the author cannot use that technology and conform to WCAG 2.1.       So that means 2.1 is in effect barring use of a technology.

We tried to not create SC that could not be met with all major technologies used in Web pages today. 

That is all I am saying.  



This goes back to my statement that we should have NO new SC that we do not also have sufficient techniques for  - at least for the 

perhaps we should add that as a requirement for new SC.

there have to be sufficient techniques for the SC for all major web technologies.   (
that is — if WE don’t know how to create conforming content for the major technologies — we should require that others do it.  


This was one reason that WCAG 2.0 took so long.  Because the WG checked its work and confirmed it was doable before releasing.    Lot of work but it really paid off.  We found so many things / errors / problems when we actually tried to apply all our great advice as requirements. 


ciao 


Gregg


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Apr 14, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gregg,
> 
> Replies inline
> 
>> just replace  IT with what IT means.
> 
> Can you suggest text that everyone can live with?
> 
>>> Lets' find out what happens with Proposal L&M on the survey.
>> 
>> I think we are slipping backwards.  I thought we resolved this before but …
>> 
>> 
>> the language
>> Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be
>> overridden as follows with no loss of essentialcontent or functionality.
>> assumes that all technologies allow this -  and therefore outlaws all
>> technologies that do not.
>> 
>> So anything that doesn’t have style sheets or similar mechanism will not be
>> able to conform to 2.1?
>> 
>> or am I missing something?
> 
> As Bruce pointed out, it goes to accessibility support.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Laura
> 
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 14 April 2017 19:51:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:48 UTC