W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2007

Fwd: Re[2]: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 06:20:00 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705290620h5e1c3d9ep708f5ee82becbde5@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marco Bertoni <m.bertoni@webprofession.com>
Date: May 28, 2007 3:33 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>


Hello Gregg and Loretta,

a more generic solution may be something like this:

Level AA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology and without loss of content or functionality.

Level AAA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology and without loss of content or functionality and in a way
that does not require the user to scroll horizontally.

If we impose to make text scalable *without loss of content or
functionality* only at one specific increment value (200 percent) the
danger is that people that need more than a 200 percent increment may
notice loss of content or functionality.

On the contrary, avoiding to impose explicit values (like 200 percent)
we force the designer to make text scalable *without loss of content
or functionality* at every scale increment (200 percent, 300
percent... or IE 6 "Larger", IE 6 "Largest" etc.).

Also this generic solution have his own problems: it's hard for a
designer to guarantee virtually infinite text increments (or
decrements) without loss of content or functionality. But this depends
on the designer professionalism. Moreover, the common sense will
probably tell a good designer that if there is a bit of  loss of
content or functionality at a certain really big text increment (or
decrement) level, this is not a major accessibility issue. But,
obviously, this is all debatable.

IMHO, only one thing is certain: it is wrong to impose a specific
increment value without making full usability tests with partially
sighted users. Especially because low vision is complex (e.g. central
field loss, multiple field loss, tunnel vision, contrast loss and
glare problems etc.) so partially sighted users may have quite
different levels of sight and, accordingly, quite different
requirements.

At last, I think that the lesser of two evils is to avoid to mention
specific values.

Have a nice day,
Marco


Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:09:37 AM, you wrote:

> Hi Marco,

>   Thank you for your comment.  Can you tell us more about what you meant by

>> However, I think that to impose
>> explicit values (like 200 percent and so on) may be
>> dangerous. How about a more generic solution?

> Thanks


> Gregg
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



--
Best regards,
Marco Bertoni
International Webmasters Association / The HTML Writers Guild
http://www.iwanet.org
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 13:20:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:21 GMT