Issue 78 Options

The following provides the proposed SC text for Issue 78. The first 22 proposals are also available.

Proposal A (Level AA)

This proposal uses "mechanism is available" language and incorporates Gregg's suggestions for a note to address the "at least" language in David's edit. Direct link to Proposal A on issue 78

Proposal A text reads:

A mechanism is available to override the following text styles of the page, with no loss of essential content or functionality:

font family by at least one different font family

text color and background color to at least a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

NOTE: The goal is that pages also work with larger spacing than the minimums cited, but the SC is met if the "at least" value is met.
NOTE: The usual way this is achieved is by a user style sheet or user plugin for the browser.

Proposal B (Level AA)

This proposal has the same list items but no mention of "mechanism" in the first sentence so attention is not diverted from where author effort should be. Direct link to Proposal B on issue 78

Proposal B text reads:

The following text styles of the page can be overridden with no loss of essential content or functionality:

font family by at least one different font family

text color and background color to at least a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

NOTE: The goal is that pages also work with larger spacing than the minimums cited, but the SC is met if the "at least" value is met.
NOTE: The usual way this is achieved is by a user style sheet or user plugin for the browser.

Proposal C (Level AA)

Direct link to Proposal C on issue 78

Bruce commented on the April 5 survey: "This SC is not structured like similar SC in 2.0. The exception for captions and images of text should be like 1.4.4. The 'all the following are true' part should probably look like 2.2.2. Current notes in 2.0 do not address intent (i.e., “"The goal is that...", so that bit should be moved to Understanding."

So we made it more like the language in 2.0.

Proposal C text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality.

font family by at least one different font family

text color and background color to at least a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Proposal D (Level AA)

Direct link to Proposal D on issue 78

@steverep wrote, "@lauracarlson, using mechanism in the way I proposed I think is fundamentally different than the way it was used previously which got so much opposition. Saying instead "when a mechanism overrides" places no requirement on that mechanism to even exist, even with a user style sheet. Instead, authors need only be concerned with loss of content or functionality when the client makes changes."

Proposal D text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, no loss of essential content or functionality occurs when a mechanism overrides any of the following text styles:

font family by at least one different font family

text color and background color to at least a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Proposal E (Level AA) and F (Level AAA)

Direct link to Proposal E & F on issue 78

This is a proposal for an in tandem 2 SC approach that was suggested on the April 4, 2017 AG call. @jasonjgw had previously mentioned it. We would have 2 Adapting Text SC's. One at level AA. And one is level AAA.

Proposal E at Level: AA

Proposal E text reads:

If the technology being used has the ability to override text styles, text styles of the page can be overridden without losing essential content or functionality as follows:

font family by at least one different font family

text color and background color to a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Proposal F at Level: AAA

Proposal F text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, a mechanism is available to set text styles of the page as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality.

font family @@ Set a range @@

text color and background color @@ Set a range @@

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5 @@ do we want to increase this?@@

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@

word spacing to at least 0.16 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@

(Jim Allan has indicated the LVTF can provide these @@ values and ranges@@.)

Proposal G (Level AA)

Direct link to Proposal G on issue 78

@steverep wrote "Alright, here's another try for evaluation meant to be fully clear on no widget, address unsupported technologies, and lack of user agent support goes to lack of accessibility support. This is meant to give an exception to uses of Flash, Silverlight, etc. which are moot to this SC, such as a video, but not give a pass to authors who use it for text-based content."

Proposal G text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, no loss of essential content or functionality occurs when a user overrides any of the following text styles:

font family by at least one different font family

text color and background color to at least a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Content presented in a technology which does not support overriding these text styles is exempt if either

a supported technology could not achieve the same content, or

text styles are not applicable to the content.

Proposal H (Level AA) and I (Level AAA): An in tandem 2 SC approach

This proposal tweaks Proposals E and F. Like those 2 proposals it is also an in tandem 2 SC approach that was suggested on the April 4, 2017 AG call. @jasonjgw had previously mentioned it. We would have 2 Adapting Text SC's. One at level AA. And one is level AAA.
For the for the AA proposal this would:

Remove the words "at least" because as it was discussed on the April 11, 2017 call and the on survey it is confusing. We can explain that these are minimums in the understanding document.

Eliminate the word "mechanism" as that has caused endless circular conversations about requiring widgets. WebAIM has commented that the word "mechanism" shouldn't be used in the SC.

Use the SC 1.4.5 language "If the technologies being used can achieve..." to address scoping.

Proposal H at Level: AA

Proposal H text reads:

If the technology being used has the ability to override text styles, text styles of the page can be overridden without losing essential content or functionality as follows:

font family to one different font family

text color and background color to a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to 0.12 em

word spacing to 0.16 em

Proposal I at Level: AAA

Proposal I text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, a mechanism is available to set text styles of the page as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality.

font family @@ Set a range @@

text color and background color @@ Set a range @@

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5 @@ do we want to increase this?@@

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@

word spacing to at least 0.16 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@

(Jim Allan has indicated the LVTF can provide these @@ values and ranges@@. Katie has suggested "2 (or 3) most common legible fonts" in each language.)

Proposal J (Level A) and K (Level AAA): Also an in tandem 2 SC approach

Greg L's Proposal from: 13 Apr 2017 AG call: "If the user uses the UA to change settings, then the page should still work. It removes all of the testing instructions, we'd list font family, foreground color, background color, line spacing, letter spacing, and word spacing. Note that those aren't the only types of formatting to which this should apply: for example, no information should be conveyed by bolding or italics alone."
This also includes Andrew's tweaks.

Proposal J at Level A or AA

Proposal J text reads:

If and when author formatting is overridden by the user agent, the page does not lose any essential content or functionality. Formatting includes:

font family

text color and background color

line spacing (leading)

letter spacing (tracking)

word spacing

Proposal K at Level: AAA

AAA would apply to closed systems. At the AAA the UA is not available to make changes, so author must do more. AAA is defined as maximally accessible, and that means going the extra effort to be accessible even when there are limitations in the user agent--as there are in a lot of mobile browsers today, which don't yet support user style sheets.

Proposal K text reads:

A mechanism is available to achieve the following text customization (except for images of text and captions):

font family can be selected by the user

text color and background color can be selected by the user

line spacing (leading) can be set to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) can be set to at least 0.12 em

word spacing can be set to at least 0.16 em

Proposal L and M: An in tandem 2 SC approach

This proposal is an in tandem 2 SC approach that was suggested on the April 4, 2017 AG call. @jasonjgw had previously mentioned it. We would have 2 Adapting Text SC's. One is at level AA. And one is level AAA.
For the for the AA proposal this would:

Remove the words "at least" because as discussed on the April 11, 2017 call and the on survey it is confusing. We can explain that these are minimums in the understanding document.

Eliminate the word "mechanism" as that has caused endless circular conversations about requiring widgets. WebAIM has commented that the word "mechanism" shouldn't be used in the SC.

Not use the SC 1.4.5 language "If the technologies being used can achieve..." as GreggV said it doesn't work as intended.

Make the language more like 2.0 language as Bruce suggested on the April 5 survey.

Provide no other explicit exceptions beyond captions and images of text. As Bruce previously pointed out that should be left to accessibility support.

Be testable.

For the for the AAA proposal this would:

Include the word "mechanism". Developers would need to do more work.

Allow for a range of values as Wayne has advocated.

Proposal L (Level AA)

Proposal L text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality.

font family to one different font family

text color and background color to a single different text color and a single different background color

line spacing (leading) to 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to 0.12 em

word spacing to 0.16 em

Proposal M (Level AAA)

Proposal M text reads:

Except for images of text and captions, a mechanism is available to set text styles of the page as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality.

font family @@ Set a range @@

text color and background color @@ Set a range @@

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5 @@ do we want to increase this?@@

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@

word spacing to at least 0.16 em @@ do we want to increase this?@@

(Jim Allan has indicated the LVTF can provide these @@ values and ranges@@. Katie has suggested "2 (or 3) most common legible fonts" in each language.)

Proposal N

This proposal would drop the color and font-family bullets for the time being and add a note similar to the one in Andrew's proposal. Then after more research reassess the situation. This would enable us to get some text out to the public and then be able to build on it.

Proposal N (at Level AA)

Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or functionality.

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Editor's note: The Working Group seeks to to include overriding text color, background color, and font-family as part of this SC, but is not yet able to identify a way to do so that is sufficiently testable.

Proposal O

This proposal uses the SC 1.4.5 language "If the technologies being used can achieve..." to address scoping. It would drop the color and font-family bullets for the time being and add a note similar to the one in Andrew's proposal. Then after more research reassess the situation. This would enable us to get some text out to the public and then be able to build on it.

Proposal O (at Level AA)

If the technologies being used by the author allow users to override the author-supplied values for the appearance of text (with the exception of images of text and closed/open captions), no loss of essential content or functionality occurs when the following are overridden:

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Editor's note: The Working Group seeks to to include overriding text color, background color, and font-family as part of this SC, but is not yet able to identify a way to do so that is sufficiently testable.

Proposal P

This proposal:

uses the SC 1.4.5 language "If the technologies being used can achieve..." to address scoping.

uses @steverep'e "allow the user agent" language.

incorporates UAAG's style properties definition.

drops the color and font-family bullets for the time being and adds a note similar to the one in Andrew's proposal. Then after more research we can reassess the situation.

would enable us to get some text out to the public and then be able to build upon it.

Proposal P (at Level AA)

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:

line spacing (leading) to at least 1.5

letter spacing (tracking) to at least 0.12 em

word spacing to at least 0.16 em

Note: Examples of text which are typically not affected by style properties are open captions and images of text, which are not expected to adapt.
Editor's note: The Working Group seeks to to include overriding text color, background color, and font-family as part of this SC, but is not yet able to identify a way to do so that is sufficiently testable.

Proposal P

This proposal:

uses the SC 1.4.5 language "If the technologies being used can achieve..." to address scoping.

uses Steve Repsher's "allow the user agent" language.

incorporates UAAG's style properties definition.

drops the color and font-family bullets for the time being and adds a note similar to the one in Andrew's proposal. Then after more research we can reassess the situation.

would enable us to get some text out to the public and then be able to build upon it.

Proposal Q

This proposal:

uses the SC 1.4.5 language "If the technologies being used can achieve..." to address scoping.

uses Steve Repsher's "allow the user agent" language.

incorporates UAAG's style properties definition.

drops the color and font-family bullets for the time being and adds a note similar to the one in Andrew's proposal. Then after more research we can reassess the situation.

adds a bullet for paragraphs to resolve Lisa's objection.

changes units from ems to font size to be technology agnostic.

would enable us to get some text out to the public and then be able to build upon it.

Proposal Q (at Level AA)

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:

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

Note: Examples of text that are typically not affected by style properties are open captions and images of text, which are not expected to adapt.
Editor’s note: The Working Group seeks to include overriding text color, background color, and font-family as part of this SC, but is not yet able to identify a way to do so that is sufficiently testable.

Testabilty

Testabilty for Options C, D, E, G, H, and L

Only one override is required for options C, D, E, G, H, and L. One option does exactly what it needs to do. It addresses the ability to override. The author has to prove that each bullet can be overridden. That is the test, plain and simple. The act of changing the value at all will highlight most or all issues people would get from changing them to their preferred values. The point is that this baseline is used to test the layout & functionality, and if it works then it is robust enough for certain user-adaptations (up to a point).
The following is the test that was previously discussed and is documented in the first comment on issue 78:

The Test

Using a bookmarklet, user stylesheet, or VIP-PDF Reader change:

font family to a different font family (e.g. Verdana if that is not in use)

foreground color and background color to a different foreground color and background color (e.g. white on black if that combination is not in use)

line height of all text to 1.5, letter spacing to 0.12em, and word spacing to 0.16em.

Expected Results

No loss of content or functionality.

Alastair's Bookmarklet

Alastair created a bookmarklet. To run a test first, create a bookmark of any page, and replace the URL with this:
javascript:(function()%7Bdocument.body.appendChild(document.createElement(%27script%27)).src%3D%27https://alastairc.ac/tests/layouts/text-adaptation.js%27%3B%7D)()%3B
A Wiki page to document results from Alastair's bookmarklet is available.
The plan is to start testing sites with these metrics on the various user-agent tools, primarily bookmarklets. See where problems surface. Adjust measures if needed. And then provide techniques.

Likely Issues

As Alastair said in Issue 78:

I'd also say it is fairly easy to test: run a bookmarklet on the page with pre-determined values. What real users might do is rather more "messy" (I think Wayne would say flexible), but we're bringing it into a reasonable-to-test area by using that as a proxy for finding issues. Kind of like keyboard accessibility is a proxy for several user-input devices.
Using that test, you find things like:

Icon fonts that disappear.

graphical backgrounds (single colour or gradients rather than pictures) that make text unreadable if you reverse the colour scheme.

menus so tightly packed they collapse or overlap with a slight adjustment of line height/spacing.

That's just from the first few pages, I'm sure we'll find more, and generate quite a few techniques (and perhaps even failures ;-) ).
There is a real user need (adapting text) that currently does not work consistently due to things authors do in HTML/CSS/JS. There is already some external stakeholder support: #153

Likely Techniques

James' Icon Font Technique

James has shared an elegant technique to address the icon font problem. On Issue 78 James wrote:

We use role="img" on the element which has our icon fonts. This seems like a good idea as it lets us write our font replacement selector to exclude them i.e.
*:not([role="img"]) {
font-family: Comic Sans MS, Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;
}

Testabilty for Option F, I, and M

For Option F, I, and M we would need more rigorous testing for the values and ranges.

Jim Allan has indicated the LVTF can provide these @@ values and ranges@@.

Wayne has proposed tests for spacing and font as well as color.

Katie has suggested "2 (or 3) most common legible fonts" in each language.

Testabilty for Options for J&K

To be determined.