Re: User-adaptations in SCs

We are missing something.
1. There are real understandable changes that are needed, and they can be
stated in plain language.
2. The problem is difficult because there are at least 2 cases:
a. The fundamental structure of the page is not changed.
b. The page is linearized and the only true limit is the visual access
profile for the user.

Do we need cases? With and without linearization? Is that the real
difficulty? Can we use language that is plain if we make the SC complex by
adding cases?

Do we need understanding language that clarifies this overall framework?

I am not sure how to connect this.

At some point we all recognize that the original page structure needs
breaking. It is exactly like moving a 15 inch landscape display onto a 4.7
inch cell phone. Once you stretch the presentation to the limit it has to
change dramatically.

Here is the problem I see. Once the page has been linearized, I don't want
spacing and font family to be constrained by limits place on non-linear
pages.

That is the structural problem I see.

Wayne





On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:29 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
>
>