Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74

Perhaps get a list from the LVTF of "dumb things authors do"  to mess up
their attempts to modify to page presentation...

I'm guessing that's what we want to prevent... in a 2.1 time frame...

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 Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Laura wrote:
> > Gregg has commented that they are not testable.
>
> So that’s 1, 12 & 13, but I’ll come back to those in a second.
>
> I’ve commented that any of the proposals which say something like “don’t
> block the user-agent” have nothing to test, it is automatically true. What
> isn’t true is that the person can use the site once it is adapted!
>
> I think that applies to 4 through 11, and 14.
>
> > Gregg also mentioned in the mechanism thread that an SC shouldn't be
> worded to what a user can or cannot do. That seems to rule out John's
> approach too.
>
> So that’s number 2 out, unless this modification works?
> “Styling of markup languages is created in a way that permits changes of
> presentation for font-family, colours and element spacing while not causing
> loss of content or functionality.
> Note: 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.”
>
> But that veers towards number 12 so I think we’ve ruled out 1-14 now?
>
> Gregg’s comment on 12/13 was that they: “require the Author to prevent
> things from happening that they have no control over.     There is no
> restriction on what modifications are done — yet they are responsible for
> the result no breaking the content.”
>
> I would agree if it were the general “can change presentation” (number 1),
> but there are restrictions: it is for changing the font-family, colours,
> and spacing around elements. Many of the LVTF have been doing this for
> years, I’ve started making every site use Comic Sans (without breaking
> anything yet), I’m sure that what is being asked is feasible.
>
> How do we narrow it further?
>
> - Can we provide a baseline of adaptations users could make in the
> Understanding document?
> - Or do we need to take a 1.3.1 type approach, where the SC text is
> simple, but there are many techniques & failures to back it up?
> - Or do we take a “Mechanism is available” approach and cover it in the
> understanding?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>