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

Hi Alastair and all,

I think you are right. I added the latest 2 proposals for preliminary
requirement (SC text) to the wiki page.

Proposal 17: with your metrics
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Text_to_Combine_79,_78,_74#Proposal_17:_No_Loss_Version_with_Alastair.27s_metrics

Proposal 18: with your metrics and Gregg's "similarly sized" definition
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Text_to_Combine_79,_78,_74#Proposal_18:_No_Loss_Version_with_Alastair.27s_metrics_and_Gregg.27s_.22similarly_sized.22_definition

Readabilty is at an average grade level of about 8 for those two.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 1/24/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thinking about the(se) adaptation Success Criteria, I really think the
> process is more important than the SC text at this stage.
>
> As I outlined before:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/0418.html
>
> I think we need an *open* process to test the limits of what a user-side
> script or extension can do, to find out what authors can reasonably do.
>
> These things are not new, the Opera browser used to have user-stylesheets
> that adjusted colours, layouts etc. There are extensions now that pull out
> content and re-format it. But there is no standard, no one has tried to
> define it in an open way.
>
> We need to have a preliminary requirement (SC text), then test, write and
> test again.
>
> If we don’t have an initial stake in the ground (of the SC text) then there
> is no point putting the effort into testing and writing techniques, but if
> we do, we have a plan and the SC text can be modified later based on the
> results.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2017 13:43:02 UTC