Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74

In addition to Laura's list, and Glenda's disabled element, also consider

lowvision-fontsize
lowvison-reflow
lowvision-hyphenate
lowvision-justification
​
lowvision-margins
lowvision-borders
lowvision-element-spacing

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
> Interesting. Are you thinking of adding attributes for low vision that
> would address 79, 78, and 74 such as:
>
> lowvision-fontfamily
> lowvision-foreground
> lowvision-background
> lowvision-lineheight
> lowvision-letterspacing
> lowvision-wordspacing
>
​

> Thank you!
>
> Kindest regards,
> Laura
>
> On 1/30/17, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> > Hi Alistair and Low Vision task force
> >
> > We are working on a full personalization architecture and will have a
> free
> > browser extension
> >
> > We will have a specification for both the semantics and the
> personalization
> > settings https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/ it is under
> the
> > aria working group.
> > A first open implementation is at
> > https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation and there is a
> demo at
> > http://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html
> > IBM and Pearson are saying they intend also to implement it (although
> > clearly I can not commit for either of them by CR it should have at
> least 2
> > implementations )
> >
> > Should someone from the low vision task force coordinate with me to
> ensure
> > LV personalization settings are fully addressed?
> >
> > Also than you can add personalization as a technique. This makes it much
> > easier to make it widely applicable.
> >
> > We are addressing the testing burden by having a maximum of 5 recommended
> > settings per user setting. So developers can test all recomended
> settings by
> > testing against 5 templates.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Lisa Seeman
> >
> > LinkedIn, Twitter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:16:54 +0200 Alastair
> > Campbell&lt;acampbell@nomensa.com&gt; 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
>
>


-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964