- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:15:30 -0500
- To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
- Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Thank you very much, Greg. Depending on the outcome of the the "Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?" question [1]. We may need to use Proposal O [1] to address scoping, so Oracle's Java Web Start can conform. Kindest Regards, Laura [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/thread.html#msg356 [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_O On 4/27/17, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> wrote: > Laura, your original question was if we could live with Proposal N. Of > course: I would not presume to hold up publication. However, I'll be > extremely disappointed if this ends up being the final wording, for reasons > I've stated in the surveys and on the calls. If we need to move along, > though, so be it. I'll resubmit my concerns in a later stage (although I do > wish we had more mature tools so I wouldn't have to keep track of them > myself). > > Greg > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text > SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that > SC has support in 2 technologies?) > From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> > To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> > Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, > Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, > Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor > <josh@interaccess.ie>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan > <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, > public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> > Date: 4/26/2017 9:43 AM >> Hi Greg, >> >> For the time being I was thinking one AA SC and dropping the color and >> font-family bullets. We could add a note similar to the one in >> Andrew's proposal [1], saying we want to to include overriding text >> color, background color, and font-family, but haven't yet found a way >> to do so that is sufficiently testable. >> >> Then after more research reassess the situation. At this point not >> sure if we would end up with 2 SCs or not. >> >> Please check Proposal N for the SC text: >> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_N >> >> Could you live with the text in that proposal? >> >> My thought is that it would be good to get some text out to the public >> and then be able to build on it. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kindest Regards, >> Laura >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/288/commits/3f49688d0720969cb31fe300d1a697294b249bba >> >> On 4/26/17, Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> wrote: >>> Laura, assuming we're still splitting Adapting Text into two SC, were >>> you >>> intending this sentence for the Level A, the Level AAA, or both? >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text >>> SC's >>> intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC >>> has >>> support in 2 technologies?) >>> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >>> To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, w3c-waI-gl@w3. org >>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >>> Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White >>> <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew >>> Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, >>> Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims >>> <glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf >>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> >>> Date: 4/25/2017 3:49 AM >>>> Hi Gregg and everyone, >>>> >>>> I'll ask this question again in a slightly different manner: >>>> >>>> Are you or anyone else not able to live with the following for the >>>> Adapting Text SC's intro sentence? >>>> >>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can >>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or >>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list). >>>> >>>> Kindest regards, >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/24/17, Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Gregg, >>>>> >>>>> Quite a few are listed on the options page [1] for instance, the last >>>>> one at AA is Option L: >>>>> >>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can >>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or >>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list). >>>>> >>>>> If you can't live with that particular one, Is there any proposal on >>>>> that page, that doesn't have the "technology being used" language that >>>>> you could live with? >>>>> >>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>> Laura >>>>> >>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options >>>>> >>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: >>>>>> Sorry >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you include the current wording for the SC you are asking about? >>>>>> >>>>>> g >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden >>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Laura >>>>>>> Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Gregg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you >>>>>>> live >>>>>>> without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>>>> Laura >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> SC will fail general applicability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but in the >>>>>>>> exploration >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> specific SC. For the most part - that has not been necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And discussion of specific SC are underway now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But if you have a blanket “we will never use this” then you might >>>>>>>> block >>>>>>>> some SC(s) from being able to get in at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by >>>>>>>> case >>>>>>>> basis. >>>>>>>> It is not needed by most all but may be needed by one or >>>>>>>> another. >>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>> lets see. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> g >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden >>>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J >>>>>>>>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> gives >>>>>>>>> an author power to simply skip over an SC just because they use a >>>>>>>>> technology with poor accessibility support. Any exceptions should >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> clear restrictions and backup accessibility support (as does >>>>>>>>> "Images >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> Text", for example). For WCAG 2.1, with or without the language >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> probably not the question. Rather, what is the compromising >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> now until we get to Silver? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which >>>>>>>>> web >>>>>>>>> technologies are "major", but in order to talk about >>>>>>>>> future-proofing >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> need to discuss responsibility. And currently, the responsibility >>>>>>>>> chain >>>>>>>>> has a very weak link from author to user that is only going to get >>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> important to strengthen as we talk about adaptation, >>>>>>>>> linearization, >>>>>>>>> personalization, and other needs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web >>>>>>>>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards. >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> WCAG >>>>>>>>> buck stops there obviously in its current form. The problem is >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, trying to remain >>>>>>>>> technology-agnostic would result in the same core issue: no >>>>>>>>> responsibility >>>>>>>>> is formally placed on web technology developers (at least not >>>>>>>>> outside >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> W3C). If we really want to produce guidelines which are both >>>>>>>>> independent >>>>>>>>> of current technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are >>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> have to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with >>>>>>>>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or >>>>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>>>> conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility >>>>>>>>> Guidelines). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Gregg C >>>>>>>>> Vanderheiden >>>>>>>>> <greggvan@umd.edu> >>>>>>>>> Cc: Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick >>>>>>>>> <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor<josh@interaccess.ie>; >>>>>>>>> Repsher, >>>>>>>>> Stephen J<stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; To Henry<shawn@w3.org>; >>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>> Allan<jimallan@tsbvi.edu>; Glenda Sims<glenda.sims@deque.com>; >>>>>>>>> w3c-waI-gl@w3. org<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf >>>>>>>>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> SC >>>>>>>>> has support in 2 technologies? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>> If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used" >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> on all of our SCs? >>>>>>>>> [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at >>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> meet >>>>>>>>> WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies in use >>>>>>>>> today, >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier, >>>>>>>>> HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to >>>>>>>>> consider >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> the moment. >>>>>>>>> Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in >>>>>>>>> mind, >>>>>>>>> and WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do agree >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> Gregg >>>>>>>>> that major user interface revolutions may well be coming, but they >>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> be based on implementation technologies that adequately support >>>>>>>>> accessibility. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain >>>>>>>>> privileged >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> whom >>>>>>>>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> e-mail >>>>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, >>>>>>>>> distribute, >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is >>>>>>>>> prohibited. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your compliance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Laura L. Carlson >>>>> -- >>>>> Laura L. Carlson >>>>> >>> >> > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 12:16:10 UTC