1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics += customisation ? about wcag HOT 4 CLOSED

1.3.3 says, in essence: in instructions/descriptions, don't refer to things by their styling, shape, colour, sound, etc, as those instructions/descriptions may not make sense to users that don't actually perceive those.

from what I understand, what you're proposing is an SC that requires sites to also allow/provide mechanisms to tailor a site's experience to their particular needs? this goes quite a step further from saying "don't rely on sensory characteristics" to "use sensory characteristics, but make them adaptable/settable by the user". i don't think - as it's not a straightforward ask, and there's no simple standardisation around this - that would be feasible as a normative criterion that is then applied to all websites/web content, certainly not at A or AA. perhaps not even at AAA

from wcag.

This is something that already exists in reading systems (such as Thorium, Books, ADE, etc.), for reflowable EPUBs or in eLearnng web apps.
In browsers for web sites, you are right, it is not yet an usual fonctionality to override the author's CSS. Browsers have general accessibility parameters, but in fact, they do not address these sensory properties. I am realizing that such a complement in the definition would create a hudge constraint on browsers! Though, it might be usefull. No constraint on the web sites themselves though.

from wcag.

It is because you cannot perceive these properties, and also because you can change them dynamically (in some reading environments), that "Instructions provided for understanding and operating content" should cannot only rely on them.

But, you are right, my suggestion goes much too far away from the 1.3.3 criteria.
I do not how to keep the idea in mind for better user experience on browsers though.

from wcag.

1.4.8 Visual Presentation criterion already covers the need for visual customization. I have added a request for font selection into it (report to issue #3660)

from wcag.