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)

Hi Wayne and all,

You are right a broad statement may be testable.

The initial LVTF proposal, GregL's SC proposal at last Thursday's meeting,
as well as Andrew's version are broad.

I think a point of contention for some is that from only reading the SC
text, testability is not evident.

Kindest regards,
Laura


On Apr 14, 2017 2:27 PM, "Wayne Dick" <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not agree that a broad statement is cannot be tested.

Font-Family: We develop a set of test fonts for each language group and
declare that working with them is sufficient.
Line-spacing, Letter-spacing and Word pacing can be constrained because it
is known that larger values produce little advantage.
Color: Well we don't know what will work for any given individual so a full
choice seems reasonable. Testing is straight forward. Pick colors that are
not on the page. Substitute them in normal and reverse polarity.

For color here is what can go wrong:
The author uses sprite taken from the background image.
The author uses transparent images for controls that depend on the pages
background color for visibility
Items that are hidden with color become visible
Embedded color declarations that use important
All of these are lexical issues (compile time)
If you don't have these you can change colors.
To be nit-picky we could say that users must pick color pairs with a
contrast of at least 2:1.

The ability to test issue is just wrong.

Wayne






On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi David, Gregg V, Greg L, Jim, Josh, Andrew, and all,
>
> David, thank you for your email and clarification. We missed you at
> yesterday's meeting.
>
> I agree that Greg L's proposal (J&K) isn't testable. It gets us back
> to where we first started. I had asked him to edit his J&K section of
> the Wiki page. Greg, if you can make your proposal testable, I will
> ask that it be added to next Tuesday's survey. If not, I don't think
> there is much point as it doesn't meet minimum SC requirements.
>
> Gregg V, the "If the technologies being used can achieve" language was
> taken directly from 1.4.5. But we can go back to the language in
> Proposal C and simply remove the words "at least" which some people
> found confusing.
>
> So I have now added Proposal L&M to the Wiki page [1].
>
> Josh and Andrew, can the L&M proposal please be added to next week's
> survey with the simple question asking if anyone can not live with it?
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_L_a
> nd_M:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach
>
> On 4/13/17, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I see in the minutes the following:
> >
> >> davidm adamant about hard metric for testing
> >
> > Actually I'
> > ​m​ not at all
> >
> > ​"adamant about a
> > hard metric"
> > ​. ​
> > I'm hoping for just ONE metric for each, and it can be ANY one metric.
> > ​ I wouldn't call that "hard". It's very soft. I think making authors
> > responsible for EVERYTHING is a big mistake. The SC cannot work like
> that.
> > The author needs to declare the font overrides they are relying on for
> > their statement of conformance. The tester would test that. It's fine to
> > test other things and make recommendations, but for conformance it has to
> > be testable, apples to apples between the author and the tester.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David MacDonald
> >
> >
> >
> > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> >
> > Tel:  613.235.4902
> >
> > LinkedIn
> > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> >
> > twitter.com/davidmacd
> >
> > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> >
> > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> > *  Adapting the web to all users*
> > *            Including those with disabilities*
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> > <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> To me J and K are steps backwards, making authors responsible for all
> >> 256,000,000 colors...
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David MacDonald
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> >>
> >> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
> >>
> >> LinkedIn
> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> >>
> >> twitter.com/davidmacd
> >>
> >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> >>
> >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> >> *            Including those with disabilities*
> >>
> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> >> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Laura Carlson <
> >> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Greg and all,
> >>>
> >>> Greg, thank you for your input on the call today [1]. I have added
> >>> your proposals to the Wiki page as Proposal J (Level A) that removes
> >>> hard metrics from the SC and Proposal K (Level AAA). [2] Please adjust
> >>> these as you see fit.
> >>>
> >>> As Andrew requested, tomorrow I'll ask on-list for a vote between J&K
> >>> and H&I [3]. They both use an in tandem 2 SC approach.
> >>>
> >>> Kindest Regards,
> >>> Laura
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/04/13-ag-minutes.html#item01
> >>>
> >>> [2] J&K Proposal
> >>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Greg_L.27s_
> >>> Proposal_J_.28Level_A.29_and_K_.28Level_AAA.29:_Also_an_in_
> >>> tandem_2_SC_approach
> >>>
> >>> [3] H&I Proposal
> >>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_H_.
> >>> 28Level_AA.29_and_I_.28Level_AAA.29:_An_in_tandem_2_SC_approach
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Laura L. Carlson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>