Meeting minutes
Survey results for (Part 3 of 4 for Issue 4): Are built-in platform accessibility features considered AT?
https://
Started this discussion yesterday
<maryjom> https://
<maryjom> Google doc: https://
<maryjom> Survey results link: https://
<maryjom> Minutes on this topic: > https://
2 new proposals since the discussion yesterday
Option 4: Phil’s suggestion
Screen magnifiers that just capture screen content and enlarge it thus resulting in pixelated content can cause problems and so do not meet the intent of this success criterion.
By contrast, mechanisms that zoom by manipulating text size, and thus do not result in pixelated or ‘fuzzy’ content are helpful and do meet the intent of this success criterion.
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal
For Non-Web Documents and Software, platform features or other software including assistive technology that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform features, software including assistive technology that when applied cause loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
(Above text copied from the Google doc)
Chuck: Liked the new proposals, but had a little concern on a possible contradiction of the Understanding document on resizing of text
… in Sam's proposal - but Chuck welcomes input from others on this point
Understanding text: https://
If we can avoid commenting on whether zoom is assistive technology, that is helpful.
<Chuck> ...including features provided by the platform....
bruce_bailey: Including bundled software / Including software & features provided by the platform owner. This might work better than "assistive technology"
… In Sam's proposal (option 5)
Content from latest WCAG2ICT editor's draft: https://
This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.4.
NOTE 1
Content for which there are software players, viewers or editors with a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion when used with such players, unless the content will not work with zoom.
NOTE 2
The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform features
that meet this requirement.
NOTE 3
See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
<Chuck> +1
Sam: Could just use "platform features or software" instead of "assistive technology". Would that make it more acceptable to take option 5?
Sam: zoom can work - if there is extra font smoothing / anti aliaising
maryjom: Think what we want to avoid is traditional screen magnification - content getting pixelated, text becomes unreadable.
<Chuck> Bruce: Talking about screen mag not being good.
<Chuck> Phil: I prefer the tone of voice, mine was a stream of thought. I think it could be an example of why it's bad. If we take Sam's proposal and add some content that explains what loss of content or functionality ment... in this content a magnifier that doesn't smooth fonts would not meet this sc. Then we've merged the 2 together.
This would result in:
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, platform features or other software including software provided by the platform owner that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied cause loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, platform features or other software including that provided by the platform owner that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied cause loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, platform features including software provided by the platform owner that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied cause loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
(without owner)
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, platform features including software provided by the platform that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied cause loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Sam> +1
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, features including software provided by the platform that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied cause loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
… with causes. ...
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, features including software provided by the platform that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied causes loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
maryjom: Reminder - this is to answer the original issue, not to add content to the document
<Sam> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Chuck> +1
+1
Take option 5 to the TF in a survey.
Option 5: Sam’s Proposal (with extra example)
For Non-Web Documents and Software, features including software provided by the platform that provide a means of enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without the loss of content or functionality meet the intent of this success criteria.
Platform accessibility features, including platform software that when applied causes loss of content, including a reduction in the ability to distinguish characters would not meet this success criteria.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to just putting option 5 in survey
We do already have NOTES 1 & 2 in the document.
NOTE 1
Content for which there are software players, viewers or editors with a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion when used with such players, unless the content will not work with zoom.
NOTE 2
The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform features
that meet this requirement.
Sam: should we add any comment about zooming that messes up the content?
maryjom: This content has been there since the 2013 note.
bruce_bailey: Point that built in software that pixelates would be useful.
maryjom: Worried about making too many changes to the doc at this stage.
<bruce_bailey> Not being able to rely on bad zoom is not a change.
Survey results for (Part 4 of 4 for Issue 4): Does 1.4.4 Resize Text guidance in WCAG2ICT need changes?
<maryjom> survey results: https://
<maryjom> Proposals in google doc: https://
Content pulled from yesterday's minutes. Hopefully this is the correct bit...
<PhilDay> Option 3: (latest edited version from Google Doc) Take pertinent text from understanding and expand to non-web (Sam edits) - this was originally Point 4 option 1.
<PhilDay> When known by the authors that a user agent or platform does not provide a text enlargement function, authors would need to provide it. The normative requirement of 1.4.4 has no exemption for inadequate user agent support, and (Understanding SC 1.4.4) clarifies this. It says, "The scaling of content is primarily a user agent
responsibility," but
<PhilDay> also, "If the author is using a technology whose user agents do not provide zoom support, the author is responsible to provide this type of functionality directly or to provide content that works with the type of functionality provided by the user agent."
<PhilDay> To expand the understanding’s content to a non-web context:
<PhilDay> "For non-web documents, the scaling of content is primarily a user agent responsibility [and for non-web software, scaling of content is primarily a platform responsibility]. If the author is using a technology whose user agents or platform software do not provide zoom support, the author is responsible to provide this type of
functionality
<PhilDay> directly or to provide content that works with the type of functionality provided by the user agent [or platform software]."
<PhilDay> For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform.
<PhilDay> Where the same information is conveyed on multiple displays only one display needs to meet this SC.
Above text cleaned up
Option 3: (latest edited version from Google Doc) Take pertinent text from understanding and expand to non-web (Sam edits) - this was originally Point 4 option 1.
When known by the authors that a user agent or platform does not provide a text enlargement function, authors would need to provide it. The normative requirement of 1.4.4 has no exemption for inadequate user agent support, and (Understanding SC 1.4.4) clarifies this. It says, "The scaling of content is primarily a user agent responsibility," but
also, "If the author is using a technology whose user agents do not provide zoom support, the author is responsible to provide this type of functionality directly or to provide content that works with the type of functionality provided by the user agent."
To expand the understanding’s content to a non-web context:
"For non-web documents, the scaling of content is primarily a user agent responsibility [and for non-web software, scaling of content is primarily a platform responsibility]. If the author is using a technology whose user agents or platform software do not provide zoom support, the author is responsible to provide this type of functionality
directly or to provide content that works with the type of functionality provided by the user agent [or platform software]."
For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform.
Where the same information is conveyed on multiple displays only one display needs to meet this SC.
Above was the whole answer, we just want the last paragraph as follows:
For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform.
Where the same information is conveyed on multiple displays only one display needs to meet this SC.
Question is do we make changes, and if so, what should they be?
If we do make substantive changes, they will need to go back through AG WG for review
bruce_bailey: Think we need to add something to the notes as the original could be improved
Chuck: Asks if we need the 2nd new note (on multiple displays). Consensus was that it is less important - and may cause extra discussion, so take it out.
So only 1 new note: (new) Note: For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform.
Then look at Bruce's simplifications
If we add this new note, then we can drop the last phrase in note 1.
Option 1: Simplify Note 1 by removing last phrase
NOTE 1: Content for which there are software players, viewers or editors with a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion when used with such players
(remove "unless the content will not work with zoom"
Then view Sam's proposals
Chuck & Mary Jo have concerns about option 2 in Sam's proposal
<bruce_bailey> i also prefer to keep 1.4.4 note 2 as-is.
Sam OK to remove option 2, leaving minor edit to note 2.
NOTE 2: The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform
accessibility features that meet this requirement.
Chris concern: What is a software player? Should we drop it?
Chuck: If we drop software players, do we then drop Note 1 entirely as it is already covered?
If we drop players, here is what the new NOTE 1 might be: NOTE 1: Software that supports a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion.
Chuck: leaning towards dropping Note 1
Sam: agree with it, just worried that people might see it as a reduction in requirements?
This is what I think we have ended up with for the revised notes as per the above discussion
NOTE 1: Software that supports a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion.
NOTE 2: The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform
accessibility features that meet this requirement.
NOTE 3: For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform.
Original content:
NOTE 1: Content for which there are software players, viewers or editors with a 200 percent zoom feature would automatically meet this success criterion when used with such players, unless the content will not work with zoom.
NOTE 2: The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform
features that meet this requirement.
NOTE 3: See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
Latest proposed change to notes (removing Note 1):
NOTE 2: The Intent section refers to the ability to allow users to enlarge the text on screen at least up to 200% without needing to use assistive technologies. This means that the application provides some means for enlarging the text 200% (zoom or otherwise) without loss of content or functionality or that the application works with the platform
accessibility features that meet this requirement.
NOTE 3: For non-web software, there may be cases where the platform does not scale all content up to 200%. In such cases, authors are encouraged to meet user needs by scaling content to the extent supported by user settings in the platform.
NOTE 4: See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
(And fix the numbers - I left them as before so it was obvious that NOTE 1 had gone)
For Thursday - have 2 options for Note 1 (either simplify, or remove)
Mary Jo will summarise and put in to a survey for next week