RE: Support as an SC prefix?

Ø  @Laura, as I read this, the author would need to ensure "Support" was authored into the content, rather than provide the actual support.

John, what I think Laura is saying is that the author could choose to build in a widget as a way to meet it rather than supporting it say through responsive design.  So either approach could be used.  The word support may imply that a widget could not be used if the author so chooses.


From: John Foliot []
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 11:26 AM
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: Alastair Campbell; WCAG
Subject: 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?)


On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Laura Carlson <<>> 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

But I'm not sure if "support" is the right word. Why wouldn't  an
on-screen widget be considered support?

Kindest Regards,

On 3/8/17, Alastair Campbell <<>> 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:

> “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
> --
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333<tel:%2B44%20%280%29117%20929%207333> / 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.<>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2017 17:09:55 UTC