Re: Deal with the word "essential" now or tackle it later?

Hi David and all,

As mentioned on issue 576, based on an evaluation of 67 pages [1]
tested between July 25 and August 3, 2017 that included top 50 Alexa
pages and some smaller pages, the combined metrics specified in the
Adapting Text SC should be feasible in WCAG 2.1 for HTML documents.
Spacing is able to adapt without loss of content or functionality
across a wide range of sites. In addition, recently 9 mega menus [2]
were tested and passed the SC.

As you know the Working Group will be going through the implementation
process and demonstrating the implementability of all the new SCs. If
you know of examples in the wild of text in UI - (e.g. menus, etc)
where it would not be possible to meet the SC, please add them to
issue 576. We can tag that issue with the "Implementation Follow-up"
label to ensure that it is re-reviewed at that point in the process.

But with that said, David, could you live with the current text that
removes the word "essential", if we added an editor's note such as:

"Editors Note: The Working Group seeks examples in the wild of text
content outside of blocks of text where it would be impossible to meet
this SC. The SC's scope may be narrowed based upon implementation
testing."

For reference the current proposed SC text [3] reads:

<quote>
Success Criterion 1.4.13 Text Spacing

If the technologies being used allow the user agent [4] to set text
[5] style properties [6], then no loss of content or functionality
occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style
property:

* Line height (line spacing) to at least 1.5 times the font size;
* Spacing underneath paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size;
* Letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 times the font size;
* Word spacing to at least 0.16 times the font size.

<end quote>

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

[1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Results_of_Bookmarklet_Tests_for_Issue_78
[2]https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/576#issuecomment-345843140
[3] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comment_Summary_1-4-13#SC_Text
[4] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-user-agent
[5] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-text
[6] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-style-properties

On 11/14/17, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:
>> My concern is that “nothing important is lost” risks making the SC not
> reliably testable. I would prefer to avoid such language. By doing so,
> accessibility is also enhanced.
>
> I agree that testability is always a concern. However, without a qualifier,
> then any minor artifacts in the transition will fail WCAG. If we remove
> essential and don't replace it with another qualifier, then I think it
> should be limited to "blocks of text"
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/576
>
> We've had 2 reputable commenters who are veteran full time accessibility
> professionals and testers, ask that this SC get changed to "Blocks of
> Text",
>  Jan Richards of the IDRC <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/551>, and
> Aiden
> from TD Bank <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/469>.
> I'd like to add my voice to that concern. I was the author of SC 1.4.8 in
> WCAG 2.0. And the "blocks of text" language was carefully negotiated, I
> never could have got through without that. I think we should carefully
> consider "Blocks of Text". Without that, there are a lot of variables, and
> possible confusion. It might become a stumbling block for the SC in CR.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
>
> 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 Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:37 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>> My concern is that “nothing important is lost” risks making the SC not
>> reliably testable. I would prefer to avoid such language. By doing so,
>> accessibility is also enhanced.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:30 AM
>> *To:* Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; White, Jason J <
>> jjwhite@ets.org>; Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; WCAG
>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Deal with the word "essential" now or tackle it later?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think we want to loose the idea that "some" loss of content and
>> functionality is acceptable as long as nothing important is lost.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>>
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=Lir2vskakn6MX2frF8w6y4JbAcCu8fxJ9Qwb9Cgb300%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=Elps11ImTbCTeuk3mmmINFY5H7ANDzaJTZK9gD1liPA%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> GitHub
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=DAmBgc3O%2FNy3QlufeouMu33tedymPTWeOBo%2B1%2BcI6AQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=KV0lh06nLBDfm1q2sdulGjq6Qe6IbOLEHuOzTuhJ8AA%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=SHmjoeBrQIoI1I3kn%2BLYFG8CFgOhY39ru0q3kw4PL%2BE%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Laura Carlson <
>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason, David, Andrew, Steve, and all,
>>
>> Regarding the latest proposed adapting text SC text, Jason wrote [1]:
>> >> It doesn't eliminate the use of the word "essential", which is not
>> >> here
>> used in accordance with its WCAG definition.
>>
>> David wrote [2]:
>> > That word is in both proposals so I think we should consider that
>> separately... perhaps you can file an issue on github.​
>>
>> It seems we already have an open issue for Use of "essential" for
>> several SCs including adapting text. It is #372 [3].
>>
>> Andrew, Issue 372 wasn't listed for Adapting Text  SC (or any of the
>> others) in your November 6 email [4] so I didn't add to the the Wiki
>> page with the rest of proposals for resolving Adapting Text issues
>> [5]. Should I add it to the Wiki page? Or should we deal with Issue
>> 372 later?
>>
>> On September 25, Steve commented in Issue 372 regarding the use of the
>> word "essential" in the Adapting Text SC. He said [6]:
>>
>> "The criterion refers to "no loss of essential content or
>> functionality". The word seems to have been introduced by @awkawk in a
>> comment way back in March [7], but I could not find any rationale for
>> its inclusion in the language (i.e. an example of content loss that
>> would be acceptable). Given this, and the fact that both Resize Text
>> and Zoom Content refer to "loss of content or functionality" without
>> using essential, I propose to simply remove the word from this SC."
>>
>> Andrew and all, would you be able to live with removing the word
>> essential from the SC?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0376.html
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2017OctDec%2F0376.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=gPwzB5W4eBS3GtUOFn3zkoFkL6xahJJ4%2BmlC%2F%2FVxkAo%3D&reserved=0>
>> [2]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0374.html
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2017OctDec%2F0374.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=cT0UhrvKsF0t5IUWBk8F6xRpIy%2Fqh9ncj7M3%2BxJrS8s%3D&reserved=0>
>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/372
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F372&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=gagg72um8D90V1Wo59oTQu4pdDddMx19x%2Fn0a413tPk%3D&reserved=0>
>> [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0313.html
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2017OctDec%2F0313.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=XLm%2FxtYIeB3ZqrZaYDfGxWvBj0okkd2QUBcL3Vu6%2Fo0%3D&reserved=0>
>> [5]
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Comment_Summary_1-4-13
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FComment_Summary_1-4-13&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=5uk17yXjWGErchrzKJvhwXLoJYne6GDY5U6OZ536r2M%3D&reserved=0>
>> [6] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/372#issuecomment-331950411
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F372%23issuecomment-331950411&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=JISpZMF9yF9tGJGJd5Xu8BhDIqu%2BogD01ukBRb%2BxOmE%3D&reserved=0>
>> [7] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78#issuecomment-289792275
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F78%23issuecomment-289792275&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C8cdf0413de084479e06408d52b6c3254%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636462666054837116&sdata=sspSef%2BcIJClGUIh2lOnmT4YzSm4IkJeCJ4YaA1RiZI%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this
>> e-mail
>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and
>> delete
>> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>
>> Thank you for your compliance.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Friday, 24 November 2017 19:22:32 UTC