- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 01:30:44 -0500
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYsuiEmyK9hCymhSgWsvXNokNrT1y7PxoiU1VxusN+dBA@mail.gmail.com>
I've moved 74 and 79 to the OBE sheet and updated the current proposed language under 78 on the spreadsheet tinyurl.com/jmo9st4 understanding that its all a work in progress. I've also updated, that I think it passes all the acceptance requirements for SCs. We need a short handle for the merged SC. Here are some possibilities: - Visual Presentation - User Presentation - Customizable - User Customizable - Flexible Presentation - Presentation Flexible - any others? Note: Some dictionaries don't recognize customizable, others do. 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 Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:04 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > I'm fine with that for a first draft and we can make clarifications > necessary in the Understanding Doc. > > 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 9:46 PM, Jonathan Avila < > jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: > >> Ø The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agent's >> ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font >> family, or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >> to the element level, for the full range of values allowed by the user >> agent, *for the technology chosen for the content*. >> >> >> >> I prefer this as we aren’t specifically calling out HTML. >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> *From:* Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu] >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:14 PM >> *To:* David MacDonald >> *Cc:* GLWAI Guidelines WG org; Jonathan Avila; public-low-vision-a11y-tf >> >> *Subject:* Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) >> >> >> >> hmmmmm >> >> >> >> The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agent's >> ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font >> family, or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >> to the element level, for the full range of values allowed by the user >> agent. >> >> >> >> I think you might be right here David — but the SC would have to make >> that a bit clearer. >> >> >> >> this could easily be read by some in the following manner. >> >> >> >> - “The browser (when using HTML) allows "background colors, font >> family, or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >> to the element level” to the following degrees (colors from x to y, the >> following font families, the spacing between characters to be x to y etc) >> — but if you use PDF — then you arecreating content that cannot be >> adjusted in these ways — so you fail this SC” >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe >> >> The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agent's >> ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font >> family, or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >> to the element level, for the full range of values allowed by the user >> agent, *for the technology chosen for the content*. >> >> >> >> Lots of words… but this would I think work — and avoid restrictive >> interpretations that would exclude anything but HTML or markup languages. >> >> >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2017, at 5:28 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> My thinking was that the SC only says "don't interfere ..." >> >> >> >> If a technology doesn't have this ability then there is no further >> requirement on the author ... >> >> >> >> If I'd say " don't interfere with my ability to eat dinner when you >> deliver the dish washer..." I'm not requiring that the movers bring >> dinner... >> >> >> >> Am I missing something? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM Jonathan Avila < >> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ø >> >> But not if not. I don’t think we want an SC at AA that can only be met >> with HTML or an expensive add on. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Saying we can’t require something for HTML that can be done in HTML >> because other types of content don’t support it isn’t helpful. That’s like >> saying some >> >> buildings can’t have ramps built to the doors so no buildings have to >> have ramps built to the door. SC 4.1.1 was scoped to markup languages and >> this new SC could be scoped in such a way that it isn’t applicable when the >> presentation can’t be controlled. >> >> We shouldn’t hold back access on the most common form of web content. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan Avila >> >> >> >> Chief Accessibility Officer >> >> >> >> SSB BART Group >> >> >> >> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com >> >> >> >> 703.637.8957 <(703)%20637-8957> (Office) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Visit us online: >> >> Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | >> >> Twitter <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | >> >> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | >> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | >> >> Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> >> >> >> >> *See you at CSUN in March! >> <http://info.ssbbartgroup.com/CSUN-2017_Sessions.html>* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged >> and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or >> entity named >> >> above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you >> are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu] >> >> >> >> >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:42 PM >> >> >> *To:* Laura Carlson >> >> >> *Cc:* Jim Allan; Dick; John Foliot; Alastair Campbell; David MacDonald; >> public-low-vision-a11y-tf; Patrick H. Lauke; GLWAI Guidelines WG org >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks Laura, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Very useful info. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Question: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You said that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "*It has been reported by Jim Allan and members of the Low Vision Task >> Force (LVTF) that Acrobat DC and VIP PDF Reader provide support*.” >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are these available as browser plug ins? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> >> If most browsers provide these as free plug ins — then you might >> consider this ‘supported by common browsers” thought normally we haven’t >> considered plug ins as browser support one could assume. >> - >> >> If they don’t act as plug ins — then you don’t have any browser >> support — so it would have to be AAA. (though I would love to have browser >> support and have it at AA !) >> - >> >> If these are not free - but expensive products - then I also don’t >> think an author could assume they would be in place on most user’s >> browsers. so.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Now if these capabilities could be a default feature in the default >> browsers (or maybe even if added as part of a free PDF reader install) then >> I can easily see this SC (and would love to see this SC) as AA. But not if >> not. I don’t think >> >> we want an SC at AA that can only be met with HTML or an expensive add >> on. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> PS ( are there any videos demonstrating how these products (*Acrobat DC >> and VIP PDF Reader) *allow adjustment of all the capabilities in the >> SC? ( i.e. Font, line spacing, word spacing etc) Love to see them. >> We are working >> >> (via OCAD) on a free tool that will do these for HTML. So would like to >> see these in action on PDF. Also always interested in anything in this >> domain. So badly needed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> G >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Gregg, >> >> >> >> Thank you for your Email and questions. >> >> >> >> It has been reported by Jim Allan and members of the Low Vision Task >> Force (LVTF) that Acrobat DC and VIP PDF Reader provide support. >> >> >> >> The level is an open question and has been debated. We don't have >> consensus yet on that point. All 3 of the original SC levels were submitted >> at AA. Most commenters on Github would >> >> like AAA. At least one person from the LVTF stated it is a solid AA for >> many people. >> >> >> >> There has been discussion in the LVTF to have an exception for UAs that >> do not provide support. Hence Wayne's mechanism disclaimer thread. >> >> >> >> As for techniques Alastair is working on a solution ala his bookmarklet. >> Wayne has proposed: "Never use !important for online settings..." PDF >> techniques haven't been discussed. >> >> Perhaps Jim could add that to Thursday's LVTF agenda? >> >> >> >> Thanks again. >> >> >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> Laura >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2017 12:26 PM, "Gregg C Vanderheiden" <greggvan@umd.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2017, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "The presentation of content does not interfere with the user agent's >> ability to allow the user to change foreground and background colors, font >> family, or the spacing between characters, words, lines, or paragraphs >> to the element level, >> >> for the full range of values allowed by the user agent." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - This is an appropriate use of the word user - since is isn't about >> what a user can do - but what the user is allowed to do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - But I worry about the constraints here. What level was this going >> at? This would look to outlaw any use of PDF even though we have PDF >> techniques — since PDF doesn’t allow these things. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Also any other technology that does not have a CSS like markup. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - is 2.1 moving to an HTML only web page approach? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - or does "for the full range of values allowed by the user agent.” >> mean that if the user agent can’t make these changes (e.g. for PDF) then >> the content passes without doing any of these things? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - I see no problem with something like this at AAA but wouldn’t putting >> it at A or AA limit the application of 2.1 to HTML or markup languages. I >> might be wrong here - so this is a question rather than an assertion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - As before — Do you have sufficient techniques for meeting this SC with >> different technologies? That was one of the key tests we always used when >> creating a new SC in 2.0. That would clarify what this means and what is >> possible and >> >> which technologies can be used. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would there be a sufficient technique for this SC for PDF? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2017 06:31:18 UTC