Re: User-adaptations in SCs

>On the face of it you are asking us (David is SC manager) to undo that
change,

I'm the Manager for linearization (Issue 58, PR 115) ... not for this
one... I think Laura is the Manager of Issue Adaptation Issue #78, PR 124.

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 Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> You made a comment on the survey that I wanted to pick up on list, I hope
> that’s ok to do? It could impact other SCs as well, so I think it’s worth
> discussing on-list.
>
> The comment was:
> > This proposal is clear and testable, but unfortunately it states a
> testing technique rather than asserting the underlying requirement, which,
> as I understand it, is to allow fonts, spacing and color to be set
> arbitrarily by the user. While I don't object to its inclusion in the
> draft, I think it should be rewritten in terms of its underlying goal.
>
> The original SC was written in that way:
> > > RE: "Adaptable presentation: Overriding the font-family, colors or
> spacing used on a web page does not cause loss of content or functionality."
>
> But on the list (23rd Jan) we had a comments from Gregg such as:
> > I dont think the author has any control of this.  You are asking the
> author to be responsible for what someone else does — without saying what
> that person might do.
> …
> > it doesn't say HOW the user will change it.   It is like saying to the
> builder — your house must stand no matter what the homeowner does to modify
> the structure after you they buy it.    You can do a lot to make a house
> modifiable but you can’t be charged with ensuring that it will stay
> functional no matter what the user does.
>
> So the explicit thing we had to do in order to progress was make it
> testable within the SC text. The values were selected to provide a baseline
> for testing, rather than be representative of what users would pick as
> such.  The idea is that testing that baseline will highlight issues that
> would come up for other values (up to a reasonable point).
>
> On the face of it you are asking us (David is SC manager) to undo that
> change, but I think it also highlights that we are trying to do something
> new in WCAG 2.1, which is to address the user-need to adapt web pages more
> than the site provides for.
>
> I previously outlined the process I think is needed during the 2.1
> timeframe:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/0418.html
>
> And there was extensive discussion about this approach in relation to
> Linearization:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/89#issuecomment-278279258
>
> I hope that explains the approach, I’d like to avoid getting stuck in a
> loop!
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>