Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

How about something like this?

==Current==

If the technologies being used allow the user agent to adapt style
properties of text, then no loss of essential content or functionality
occurs by adapting all of the following:


==revised===
If the technologies being used allow the user agent to adapt style
properties of text, then no loss of content necessary to understand or
operate the page occurs by adapting all of the following:





Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:04 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> > essential if removed, would fundamentally change the information or
> functionality of the content, *and* information and functionality cannot
> be achieved in another way that would conform
>
> Sure, when we wrote it we we put the definition in there to define content
> that would get an exception. But on the face of it, these words don't mean
> "essential content doesn't conform"
>
> The second clause says "in another way that would conform". That is not
> the same as saying "this way doesn't conform" It could easily mean. ​"This
> way conforms, and there is not another way that conforms."
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> David MacDonald wrote:
>>
>> > ### Adapting Text [question 3]
>>
>> > I agree there is a problem, but removing essential is a normative
>> change, that increases the requirement on authors.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d note for this one that we’ve been through the top 50 websites to test
>> it, and found relatively few issues. E.g. certain boxes in google search
>> results with a fixed height would start overlaping. Most content (even
>> navigation menus) were fine, which surprised me a bit.
>>
>>
>>
>> For those that remember trying to get text-sizing working up to 200%,
>> imagine doing it for 115%, it is actually easier than I thought it would
>> be. Remember that I was arguing for a smaller overall level of expansion? I
>> stopped making that argument after the testing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore I didn’t have a problem with dropping essential here, even
>> before the logical issues were pointed out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > ### Content on Hover or Focus [question 6]
>>
>> > I agree there is a problem, but swapping essential for "pure
>> decoration" is a normative change, there is a difference. I think we should
>> pause on fixing this one, and bring it back to the LVTF, and fix it
>> separately.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about the phrase we use in sizing, “content or functionality”, so:
>>
>> “Either the additional content does not obscure any content or
>> functionality within the triggering user interface component,”
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s somewhere between the dictionary meaning of essential, and
>> ‘unless’ pure decoration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>
>