- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:44:21 -0500
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Andrew and all, Does "Accessibility support documentation is available for at least two technologies" mean that the SC must currently work in 2 technologies such as PDF and HTML? Or does it mean that it can fail in 1 of the 2 technologies but we merely need to document the pass and failure? I am asking because the answer to this question will impact the Adapting Text SC. From what I have gathered and from testing that SC can not currently be reliably tested in PDF [1] [2]. As described in Issue 349, VIP-PDF Reader: * Has no adjustment for spacing underneath paragraphs [3] * Can be difficult to set a window size of 1280px by 768px [3] * Has internationalization issues [4] * Presents difficulties for authors in deciding if a failure is a user agent issue or a technology issue [5] However, Cascading Style Sheet/HTML/JS technologies are quite able to adapt to the specified spacing metrics [6][7]. Thank you. Kindest Regards, Laura [1] Results of VIP-PDF Reader Tests for Issue 78 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Results_of_VIP-PDF_Reader_Tests_for_Issue_78 [2] Google spreadsheet of VIP-PDF Reader Results https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LRsAtLReBL6LnbvJQ4biQ1ER1fKbh8MDWnH qbsW7B1o/edit#gid=1481238311 [3]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/349#issuecomment-328969743 [4] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-323662527 [5] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-323961512 [6] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Results_of_Bookmarklet_Tests_for_Issue_78 [7] Google spreadsheet of Bookmarklet Results https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LRsAtLReBL6LnbvJQ4biQ1ER1fKbh8MDWnHqbsW7B1o On 10/12/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: > AGWG’ers, > > On the call today and from the survey at > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21_impl/results we seemed to gather > some support for adopting a modified version of the WCAG 2.0 CR Exit > Criteria. > > The WCAG 2.0 criteria are here: > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/ > > Proposed exit criteria: > > 1. At least 5 conforming Web sites > 1<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote1> are available, > of which > * At least four conform at level AA, > * At least one conforms at level AAA; > 2. At least two implementations > 2<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote2> exist for each > success criterion added in WCAG 2.1 (Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0 do not > need new implementations); > 3. Accessibility support documentation > 3<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#statusnote3> is available > for at least two technologies with at least four platforms (operating > system/user agent/assistive technology combinations); > 4. All sufficient techniques listed in Understanding WCAG > 2.0<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/> at the end of > the Candidate Recommendation period contain test procedures; > 5. The Working Group has responded formally to all issues raised against > this document related to any implementation efforts during the Candidate > Recommendation period. > > Changes from WCAG 2.0: > #1: changed from 10 sites, with 4 at A, 4 at AA, and 2 at AAA > #2: removed > #3: now #2, included mention of only getting implementations for new SC > #4: now #3. This was debated and no consensus was arrived at on the call. > More on this below. > #5: now #4, unchanged > #6: now #5, unchanged. > > The accessibility support documentation item had different opinions. Some > had opinions that we needed to make sure that this was addressed for the new > success criteria, but others felt that this was already largely covered by > the work done in WCAG 2.0. It is worth noting that the documentation (e.g. > https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/implementation-report/html-uses1) is > focused on the accessibility support for aspects of technologies that exists > on different OS/UA/AT combinations, and it is generally distinct from the > WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria requirements. > > The Working Group needs to decide whether it will perform additional > evaluations to document the accessibility support for newer technologies, > such as HTML5, or if the original work suffices for the purpose. > > Thoughts on accessibility support documentation? > > Thoughts on anything else about this? > > > Thanks, > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > Group Product Manager, Accessibility > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com > http://twitter.com/awkawk -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 14 October 2017 19:44:48 UTC