Re: User-adaptations in SCs

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the clarification, so for the conclusions:

> (1) that it leaves the underlying purpose opaque to readers of the Guidelines

As a minor aside, I would say that is the case for many or most 2.0 guidelines. We know them, but anyone new to them has to read the understanding to get anywhere.


> (2) that it prevents content authors from understanding and applying the underlying purpose rather than the narrow testing requirement stated in the proposed SC

We need to provide a baseline for testing, it is just whether the baseline values are in the SC text or not. I don’t feel strongly about that.


> (3) if the testing requirement doesn't prove to be robust - if it can pass in ways that fail to achieve the actual purpose of allowing the necessary user adaptation - then it won't adequately address the accessibility need which it is designed to support.

And that is what the process I linked to is for – to ensure we have good techniques (and possibly failures) for this SC.

If everyone is happy that the SC text is good in principle, then we can add a note to the effect that final publication of the SC will depend on there being good techniques (although I think that applies to all of them!)

Cheers,

-Alastair

PS. Sorry for getting the SC manager wrong David, although it does apply to both as they are both forms of adaptation.

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 14:30:27 UTC