Re: proposal for responses to 20 March 2015 Comments - SH01

I agree that it is difficult to follow the nested comments. 
Unfortunately, I made it worse by not making my response clear.

SH01
I was trying to propose that we make one of the changes for 
normalization and deny the second. The first bullet:
* Line spacing, choosing from a range with at least three values up to 
at least 2 times the default
... should be normalized for both SCs where we discuss line spacing.

I further proposed that we NOT normalize the phrasing for text styles.  
In the SC that refers to global changes, we agreed that the ability to 
turn off text styles (and one use case for turn on bold) was needed.  
The SC that refers to text styles element by element we want people to 
have the ability to customize the styles, so "turn on/off" is 
unnecessarily restrictive and could be detrimental.  I am thinking about 
software that allows users to customize the bold thickness, underline 
thickness etc.  Even though I can't think of a browser today that 
supports that customization outside of CSS, since CSS supports it, it 
could happen.

SH01 (2nd comment)
I am proposing to accept Shawn's recommendation that we rephrase "When 
it comes to magnification, size, or spacing, the optimum value for a 
given user would vary based on their visual impairment..." TO:
"Users have varying needs for text size and spacing"

I hope this helps.

jeanne

On 3/30/2015 1:53 AM, Greg Lowney wrote:
> It may be just me, but I'm again finding it difficult to follow the 
> thread through these nested responses. For example, you say we 
> "decline the second change" and explain "UAWG's opinion is that the 
> need to turn the text style on or off globally is a rare, but 
> necessary use case.  Customizing text on an element level does not 
> require that global ability.  UAWG chose the phrasing deliberately." 
> Which phrasing are you referring to? The explanation seem to imply 
> that she's either asking for global settings to be removed (your first 
> sentence) or local settings to be added (your second); I can't tell 
> which you're declining, but in my reading of her comments I don't see 
> her asking for either. Are you referring to where she quotes bullet 
> items for 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 and asked "Should these be the same or is 
> there a reason that they are different?" I read that as merely 
> questioning why the wordings differed, with the implied suggestion 
> that we normalize them if the difference was unintentional, rather 
> than suggesting we remove any requirements. (Those are in her second 
> "SLH" response to your first response to her SH01, showing how 
> confusing these nested responses get.) My apologies if I'm totally 
> misreading this.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Greg
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: proposal for responses to 20 March 2015 Comments - SH01
> From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
> To: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
> Date: 3/27/2015 10:11 AM
>> We received new comments in response to our request to close out the 
>> prior comments.
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2015JanMar/0055.html
>>
>> Kim moved the key parts of the email to a wiki page:
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Comment_Response_20_March_2015
>>
>> I propose the following changes  in response to SH01:
>> SH01 response has 2 parts.
>> 1) I propose to change Line Spacing so that the text matches in both 
>> places.
>>     "* Line spacing, choosing from a range with at least three values 
>> up to at least 2 times the default"
>> I propose to decline the second change and respond:
>> "UAWG 's opinion is that the need to turn the text style on or off 
>> globally is a rare, but necessary use case.  Customizing text on an 
>> element level does not require that global ability. UAWG chose the 
>> phrasing deliberately.  "
>>
>> 2) I propose accepting the change as suggested: Change "When it comes 
>> to magnification, size, or spacing, the optimum value for a given 
>> user would vary based on their visual impairment..." TO:
>> "Users have varying needs for text size and spacing"
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 15:14:39 UTC