- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:42:25 -0600
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
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