Re: CFC - Printing SC

​> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have
not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
the CfC deadline.


*STRONG OBJECTION: I am unable to live with this decision at this time* with
the currently incomplete draft text.​


I have previously raised serious concerns on this list in regard to this
proposed SC, and they have not been adequately answered. Additionally,
there were multiple voices on Tuesday's call
<https://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-ag-minutes.html#item02> stating that this SC
was "half-baked" or incomplete, and nothing has emerged since then to
substantially change that perspective.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will restate my concerns
here as part of my Objection:

*ISSUES:*

   - *Testability:* I have previously raised concerns regarding the
   testability of this SC. My own personal testing has shown that *page
   size, page orientation, and even page print-margins* have a material and
   direct impact on whether or not content "passes" or "fails" this SC, yet
   those testing parameters are currently undefined.

   Additionally, I have previously demonstrated how I can modify an
   "Oversized" page sizing in the PDF print dialog to accomodate pages of
   *any* size (my example was 20 inches wide), which means that because page
   size is not defined in the current Draft, I could successfully meet this
   requirement 100% of the time as long as the page is "big enough".

   (I note as well that while the SC alludes to "printing" as being
   paper-based, the fact that I could "print" a PDF at 20" by 30" for local
   storage and retreival is not explicitly ruled out, even though that
   scenario would not meet the stated justification in the SC which
states: *"It
   is difficult for some people to read text on the computer; they need to be
   able to print electronic text on paper in order to read it."*)

   Without accurate and detailed test parameters, this SC cannot be
   properly tested for compliance.


   - *Text Hyperlinks: *The current draft states "*When a page can be
   printed, essential information is printed with no loss of content or
   adapted text properties.*" I have previously asked about the impact of
   printing out pages with text hyperlinks, and the fact that the URLs will be
   "lost" when pages with text-only hyperlinks are present.

   Is that not also "loss of essential information"?

   Despite asking for clarification on this point, none has come forward.


   - *Scrolling Content inside of page divs or iFrames: *Once again, if a
   page has a scrollable region embedded somewhere on the page, when printed
   not all content will be rendered - only the visible content inside the
   scrollable region. This will make any page with a scrollable region
   non-conformant.

   Is the intent of this SC to forbid scrollable regions on web pages?

   Again, while I have raised this concern, I have not received a suitable
   or reasonable response.


   - *Images that exceed the physical dimensions of a printable page: *This
   issue is doubly frustrated by the fact that print page dimensions and
   orientation have not been defined. A complex infographic that exceeds 2550
   pixels in width will simply not print on standard North American sized
   pages (unless those pages are in Landscape mode).

   Is the intent of this SC to forbid the use of graphics that exceed 2550
   pixels? (or 3300 pixels, aka 11 inches)


   - *The Role of User Agents in this SC: *Some early testing by myself has
   also raised the concern over printing defaults set by the browsers and
   printers. As Jim Allan stated
   <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/76#issuecomment-324988860>: "*​the
   browser handles the breakpoints for paper sizes.*" If this is the case,
   how can we make this an Authoring issue, short of demanding a complete
   adaptive print stylesheet for every website? (Note to Jim: 'traditionally'
   browsers will handle printing breakpoints, unless the author has
   specifically supplied them using the CSS page-break attribute
   <https://www.w3.org/wiki/CSS/Properties/page-break-after>. To meet this
   SC, would not the adaptive stylesheet also need to override the content
   author's use of this attribute as well, as it may directly impact whether
   or not content may go "missing"?)

   Additionally, are we confident today that all browsers share the same
   printing defaults? What of evaluators who may have made changes to their
   print-setup for personal reasons? Without specifying the print parameters
   (above) we will get plenty of disparate test results.


   - *Conflicts with existing author-supplied stylesheets: *The current
   draft states that for testing purposes, a rudimentary 'adaptive' print
   style sheet be used that adjusts line-height, letter-spacing, word-spacing,
   and paragraph padding only.

   However variables related to content-containers (width and height), as
   well as issues around the use of CSS page-break attributes, EPUB pagination
   of content, the fact that background colors traditionally do not print (and
   so for example some text content would "disappear" as being white text on
   white paper) and more, could potentially result in nonconformance. All of
   these issues are potential 'failures', yet are noticeably absent from a
   proposed SC simply entitled "Printing".

   While I have only mentioned my concern over the CSS page-break attribute
   once, there have also been previous enquiries from others (AWK) around the
   issue of pagination that have not been adequately addressed.


It is my belief that these are serious and significant issues that far
transcend minor editorial adjustments, and this draft is woefully
incomplete. In addition to the specific issues raised above, it does not
address in any meaningful way the role that CSS grid systems
<https://www.webpagefx.com/blog/web-design/responsive-css-grid/> have on
modern websites today, as it appears to presume only basic layouts and
text-heavy content.

I appreciate that all of the Task Forces wanted to see all of their SC move
forward, but earlier this week we also had to say "no" to a number of
incomplete SC from the COGA TF with regard to Tuesday's cut-off date. I
fear that this SC, being as incomplete as it is now, will negatively
reflect on the impression of quality of *ALL* of our newly proposed SC
being advanced "to the next round".

*It is simply not ready.*

JF




On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday August 29st at 11:59pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group has reviewed and approved a new SC on Printing for
> inclusion in the Editor’s Draft, with the goal of obtaining additional
> input external to the working group.
>
> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/22-ag-minutes.html#item02
>
> The new Success Criteria can be reviewed here, in the context of the full
> draft:
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/printing_ISSUE-76/guidelines/#printing
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion