RE: CFC - Printing SC

0
Concerns with the basic language of the SC. In example, would the 
uninitiated read this as saying printed with no adapted text properties or 
no loss of those properties?

> When a page can be printed, essential information is printed with no 
loss of content or adapted text properties. 

That's easy to fix a few ways, including with the addition of "either".

"When a page can be printed, essential information is printed with no loss 
of either content or adapted text properties. "

That aside, I continue to be concerned there is nothing in the exceptions 
about situations where an author intentionally and with reason preserves a 
page layout. I do think if such issues are noted in an editor's draft, 
this is worthwhile to seek public comment on.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>
To:     Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc:     WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2017-08-27 12:44 AM
Subject:        RE: CFC - Printing SC



 
-1
 
As much as I would like to see the content writer part take the 
responsibility to able users to print properly I tend to agree with John 
and would like to see it much more scoped. It is not ready as much as 
other SC are. Would like to see more work done before sending if off to 
the world.
 
 
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 20:37
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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 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: "​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. 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 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: 
m
 
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ATTENTION:

The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the 
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or 
disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message 
immediately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------