- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:30:16 +0000
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Thanks for that Laura, Sorry, I must have missed your initial one, otherwise I’d have referenced it! I have a preference for 12/13, followed by 1 & 11 for several reasons: - Any SC sentence with more than about 50 words is probably too long and needs simplifying or re-structuring. The complexity of including user-agent aspects, the technology, mechanisms… makes that difficult. - If the SC focuses on what the content needs to allow for, then we can drop references to mechanisms, user agents etc. - User-override of the presentation is possible for the “regular” web technologies (including PDF), but if we must have an exception I’d like to use a Note (similar in concept to 2.1.1 Keyboard) such as Wayne's “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.” Update: Like 13, but the second sentence is a note. - The term “Overriding” is explicit about what is happening, whereas “Changing the presentation” isn’t as clear about what the scenario is. Now onto to Gregg's comments :-) -Alastair
Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 22:30:52 UTC