1.4.12 Text Spacing

[melaniephilipp]

Please consider adding the word “user” as shown below:

“[For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages or software in a way that supports USER modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:...”

[maryjom]

Hi Melanie. Thank you for taking the time to review the WCAG2ICT public draft. Our task force will review your comment and develop a response that we hope will address your concern. The response will be drafted in a comment on this issue, marked, DRAFT RESPONSE until the Task Force reaches consensus.

[mraccess77]

I understand both sides of this discussion - what we want to try to say is that the style properties can be changed outside of the development environment (something that is not clear in the current wording)- that is by settings the user can control within the non-web software or by some external influence such as system settings that can change some or all of the properties. The system settings could be changed by the user or by someone else other than the user. While the word user helps - we would really still need to define what is meant by user in this case as that could be seen as too limiting.

[maryjom]

IMO, it's unclear in the WCAG wording as well. It would probably be best to address that in WCAG as our task force is not at liberty to clarify unclear SC by modifying SC text. We can only to interpret their applicability to non-web documents and software, provide word substitutions for web-based language, and provide helpful notes, when needed. The TF will have to discuss this to see if there's anything we might document in the notes for this SC.

[loicmn]

I agree with @maryjom. WCAG2ICT cannot change WCAG content, and the inclusion of "user" in the success criterion is a change of the original WCAG success criterion. If we receive more information about the issues that might be solved by adding "user", then we should send that information to be considered as an update of WCAG.

[melaniephilipp]

I'm confused... the draft DOES change the WCAG content from:
"...content implemented using markup languages that support the following text style properties..."

to:
"...content implemented using markup languages [in a way that supports modification of] the following text style properties..."

I understand the limits of your scope WRT to WCAG normative. I just thought that since you were already proposing to change the language, adding "user" would reinforce/clarify the intent of the SC. It is an often misunderstood SC.

Could you help me understand the intention behind your change to the original language?

Thank you!

[maryjom]

@melaniephilipp
Hi Melanie,

In response to your original comment in this issue:

Although this modification of content could be undertaken by the user, there may also be instances when other agents make these modifications (e.g. software refactoring 3rd party content). In this case, the addition of the word USER would suggest that these system modifications are out of scope for this success criteria. This would narrow the original intent somewhat. There may be other things other than a user that could change the presentation (e.g. Operating system, AI, or user agent automated changes).

If you have a counter argument for why you still believe that adding the word USER would help, please provide specific examples of why you think this is needed to help the Task Force to debate this further.

In the absence of further feedback from yourself, we therefore propose to keep the original wording:

“[For non-web documents or software] content [implemented using markup languages or software in a way that supports modification of] the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and by changing no other style property:...”

Note: we'll address your latest question in another response (currently being drafted).

[maryjom]

WCAG2ICT Response to the secondary comment @melaniephilipp :

Hi Melanie,

The task force felt that the replacement verbiage supported the stated applicability of the SC while making it clear that this would only apply when modification of these properties is supported.

The Understanding SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing content provides applicability information, as quoted here:

If the markup-based technologies being used are capable of overriding text to the Success Criterion's metrics, then this SC is applicable.

We could instead state the applicability in a note, if that is preferable.

The Task Force did not add "user" to the replacement verbiage, as we felt that this would narrow the scope of the success criterion. If clarification is needed on the scope of the SC and whether it is limited only to user modification of text spacing, an we suggest opening an issue on WCAG for the AG WG to provide that clarification.

[mitchellevan]

For the record, here's a real-world example of non-web software that allows modification of text spacing properties. Personalize text spacing in the "chrome" of Firefox (YouTube)

While this example happens to demonstrate a mechanism for user modification, I do agree with the Task Force consensus on the phrasing for WCAG2ICT.

[maryjom]

Closing the issue, as it was answered a while ago. If there is new information or this is not answered to your satisfaction you can either reopen this issue, preferably with a suggestion of what changes you think are needed or open a new one.