Re: Support as an SC prefix?

Hi Alistair,

Interesting... we would likely have to detail what "Support" would entail
in our Techniques Section, but I like the general idea.

@Laura, as I read this, the author would need to ensure "Support" was
authored into the content, rather than *provide* the actual support. For
example, @alt text "supports" a screen reader user, but the author is not
required to provide a tool that surfaces that @alt text, only ensure that
the conditions are met (i.e. appropriate alt text) when a support tool (aka
screen reader) is invoked.

(Alastair, is that a correct understanding of your proposal?)

JF

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Alastair and all,
>
> Interesting idea regarding having a prefix or some other indicator
> that a widget is not required. It would be great to alleviate that
> misconception.
>
> But I'm not sure if "support" is the right word. Why wouldn't  an
> on-screen widget be considered support?
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 3/8/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > There is an interesting point raised on github for the SCs which are
> aimed
> > at authors enabling something without (necessarily) adding on-screen
> > widgets:
> > https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/159#issuecomment-285020097
> >
> > “Maybe the use of the "Support" prefix would be a useful standard to set
> for
> > the SC titles if an on-screen widget is not required, so that in this
> case
> > it would be "Support Reflow to Single Column", just as we have "Support
> > Personalization".
> > This would also suggest a rename of 1.4.13 to "Support Printing", for
> > example.”
> >
> > It would be an alternative to the “mechanism is available” language,
> > hopefully leading people away from assuming there would be on-screen
> > widgets.
> >
> > If that were taking on, I think it would lead to:
> >
> > ·         Support linearization (Or ‘Support reflow to single column’)
> >
> > ·         Support printing (Or ‘Support adaptations when printing’ might
> be
> > more accurate.)
> >
> > ·         Support adapting text
> >
> > ·         Support extra symbols.
> >
> > And possibly others from COGA that didn’t make it to the FPWD.
> >
> > So two questions:
> >
> > 1.       Do you think this approach is helpful? And if so,
> >
> > 2.       Is “support” the right prefix?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > -Alastair
> >
> > --
> >
> > www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>
> > tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
> > follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
> > Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT
> >
> > Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion