Re: Support as an SC prefix?

Absolutely.

On 3/8/17, alands289@gmail.com <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don’t forget that your icon will need a label per
>
> F26: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.3 due to using a graphical symbol
> alone to convey information
>
> Description
> The objective of this technique is to show how using a graphical symbol to
> convey information can make content difficult to comprehend. A graphical
> symbol may be an image, an image of text or a pictorial or decorative
> character symbol (glyph) which imparts information nonverbally. Examples of
> graphical symbols include an image of a red circle with a line through it, a
> "smiley" face, or a glyph which represents a check mark, arrow, or other
> symbol but is not the character with that meaning. Assistive technology
> users may have difficulty determining the meaning of the graphical symbol.
> If a graphical symbol is used to convey information, provide an alternative
> using features of the technology or use a different mechanism that can be
> marked with an alternative to represent the graphical symbol. For example,
> an image with a text alternative can be used instead of the glyph.
>
>
>
> Alan Smith
>
> From: Laura Carlson
> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 3:58 PM
> To: Jonathan Avila; John Foliot; Alastair Campbell
> Cc: WCAG
> Subject: Re: Support as an SC prefix?
>
> Hi John, Jon, Alastair, and all,
>
> I agree whole hardily with the concept. We have gone round and round
> explaining that author supplies widgets are not required on several of
> low vision SCs. So something to call that out from the start would be
> a blessing.
>
> But the word "support" by itself is ambiguous. I don't think it would
> clarify.
>
> Maybe if the handle was longer:
>
> "support X (author supplied widgets not mandated)"
>
> But that gets kind of long.
>
> Here is an idea. I wonder if an icon as part of the handle could help
> convey that author supplied widgets are not mandated.
>
> Maybe a pen and gear with a dashed line though them? I am thinking a
> dash instead of a solid line as author supplied widgets wouldn't be
> required but they wouldn't be outlawed either.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 3/8/17, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
>> 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?)
>>
>> JF
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Laura Carlson
>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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><http://www.nomensa.com/>
>>> 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.
>> john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2017 21:38:26 UTC