- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:35:36 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbyDV9+NoqKZjCeNW4vyKr=ekyTvEnW7sW=FdfLRJK=cA@mail.gmail.com>
Maybe add Wayne's concern to the end of line "...to the element level, for the full range of values allowed by the user agent ." 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 Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Does anyone prefer the following text to combine the 3 SCs. > > "The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agents > ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font > family, or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs." > > Thank you. > > Kindest regards, > Laura > On Jan 21, 2017 7:38 AM, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> Terrific. Thank you so very much! >> >> Can anyone not live with David's text to combine the 3 SCs? >> >> "The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to >> allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font family, >> or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Kindest regards, >> Laura >> >But it is not the content itself that is the barrier. >> >> WCAG's definition of content includes the way it's laid out. >> >> "content (Web content) >> information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by >> means of a user agent <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef>, >> including code or markup that defines the content's structure >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef>, *presentation >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#presentationdef>*, and interactions" >> >> But if the group would rather be more specific to help the audience >> better understand, I'm fine with "Presentation of content" for the first >> draft. >> >> >>an SC shouldn't be worded to what a user can or cannot do. >> >> Exactly. >> >> 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 Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Laura Carlson < >> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Thank you! Calling out the 3 specific areas is a very good improvement >>> in the SC text. >>> >>> I think removing "CSS" to be tech agnostic is a good move. But it is >>> not the content itself that is the barrier. It is the presentation of the >>> content. Would replacing "Content" with the "Presentation of content" be >>> allowable? >>> >>> Gregg metioned in the mechanism thread that an SC shouldn't be worded to >>> what a user can or cannot do. Does that rule out John's appoach to >>> demarcate user and UA roles? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> Laura >>> >>> >In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between >>> what the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the >>> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices). >>> >>> I think we would need to replace CSS with something more generic, to >>> be technology agnostic, even though we really might mean "CSS". >>> How about this attempt to combine 74, 78, 79. >>> >>> " >>> The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to allow the >>> user to change foreground and background colors, font family >>> , >>> or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >>> ." >>> >>> 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> >>> >In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between >>> what the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the >>> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices). >>> >>> I think w >>> e would need to replace CSS with something more generic, to be >>> technology agnostic, even though we really might mean "CSS". >>> How about this attempt to combine 74, 78, 79. >>> >>> >>> " >>> The content does not interfere with the user agents ability to allow the >>> user to change foreground and background colors, font family >>> , >>> or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >>> ." >>> >>> >>> 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 Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:43 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Laura, >>>> >>>> Thank you - that appears to be significantly more focused on what the >>>> author should (or shouldn't) be doing, although I'd still like it to focus >>>> more on the roles of both author and user: >>>> >>>> "Document styling using CSS is created in a way that permits *users* >>>> to change presentational styling while not causing loss of content or >>>> functionality. If no mechanism exists to change presentational styling >>>> on any user agent for the target technology, then the *author* has no >>>> responsible to >>>> create one." >>>> >>>> >>>> In my draft re-write, I think there is a clearer demarcation between >>>> what the author needs to do (create modify-able CSS styles) and what the >>>> end-user needs to do (make personalization choices). >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> JF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Laura Carlson < >>>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Alastair, Patrick and all, >>>>> >>>>> Here is an idea. >>>>> >>>>> Alastair wrote: >>>>> > Perhaps it should be something like: >>>>> > "Changing the font-family used to display a web page does not cause >>>>> loss of >>>>> > content or functionality." >>>>> >>>>> Since the aim of issue 79 (font [1]), 78 (spacing [2]), and 74 (text >>>>> color [3]) are so similar in aim why not expand it to cover those too? >>>>> At one point in the Spacing SC issue Patrick suggested [4]: >>>>> >>>>> "...why not generalize the SC so that all sorts of presentational >>>>> attributes (beyond just spacing) can be changed using user styles or >>>>> similar? And the failure examples could then include things like >>>>> !important and style attributes?" >>>>> >>>>> Would something such as the following be too wide? >>>>> >>>>> "Changing presentational styling does not cause loss of content or >>>>> functionality." >>>>> >>>>> And then adjust Wayne's disclaimer: >>>>> >>>>> "If no mechanism exists to change presentational styling on any user >>>>> agent for the target technology, then the author has no responsible to >>>>> create one." >>>>> >>>>> Kindest Regards, >>>>> Laura >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79 >>>>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78 >>>>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/74 >>>>> [4] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-271164347 >>>>> >>>>> On 1/19/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: >>>>> > Hi Wayne, >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm not so concerned with whether the user can change the >>>>> font-family, as >>>>> > they can. >>>>> > >>>>> > It is what issues *come from* changing the font-family that are the >>>>> problem. >>>>> > I assume it is things like overlap, wrapping that breaks interactive >>>>> > controls, and font-icons disappearing? >>>>> > >>>>> > Perhaps it should be something like: >>>>> > "Changing the font-family used to display a web page does not cause >>>>> loss of >>>>> > content or functionality." >>>>> > >>>>> > Anyway, it's past midnight here, g'night! >>>>> > >>>>> > -Alastair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Laura L. Carlson >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Foliot >>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist >>>> Deque Systems Inc. >>>> john.foliot@deque.com >>>> >>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >>>> >>> >>> >>
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2017 14:36:14 UTC