Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors

the horizontal scrolling is something to avoid as long as, and wherever possible.

But it is not something we can avoid at all levels of enlargement and for all types of content.

the hard part if finding the lines where it is required on this side and not on that side….. 
and finding when it is not practical — or help fun   (e.g. spreadsheets where you need to keep both horizontal and vertical comparison capability) 

gregg

> On Jul 11, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Ø  b) people need that much will want it without the additional benefits of a screen enlarger    
>  
> I believe one of the challenges is that once you introduce an assistive technology on top of the user agent you generally introduce horizontal scrolling which is something we want to prevent.  Some assistive technologies have reader views that are like user agents.  It might also be possible to resize the viewport and use a screen magnifier but I think it would be tricky to setup and having a window that takes up the width of the screen for some users can prevent errors such as clicking outside of the window and losing focus.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group 
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> 703.637.8957 (Office) 
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10:31 AM
> To: David MacDonald
> Cc: alands289; Alastair Campbell; Laura Carlson; Jonathan Avila; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; public-low-vision-a11y-tf
> Subject: Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
>  
> you are right
>  
> we need to thoroughly test something that high - and be sure that  
>  
> a) it is doable on most pages (all pages we scope it for)  
>   -  redoing it  with that much enlargement is a lot.   
>  
> b) people need that much will want it without the additional benefits of a screen enlarger    
> 400% without all the tracking etc (that comes with a screen enlarger) might be tricky.
> and how do they need 400% on the web content but not the browser itself or anything else on the desktop?    how do they use those? 
>  
>  
> 
> gregg
>  
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:42 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>  
> I've been teaching people with low vision transitioning to blindness for a number of years. Usually, by the time they are at  400-500% (4x to 5x on zoomtext), I'm saying something like this
>  
> "Ok, let's have that conversation about a dedicated screen reader again"
>  
> I had one student who was very attached to Zoom and hung on until 20x (which allows about 5 characters wide on a 27" screen), but when I finally convinced her to switch to a Screen Reader she said
>  
> "I can't believe I waited so long, this is sooooo much better."
>  
> I think for a user agent zoom we can't realistically be looking at more than 300-400% ... and that will require significant testing and mockups as a proof of concept... 
>  
> The thinking in WCAG 2 was that people needing more than 200% generally have assistive technology but I (cautiously) think we could increase that to perhaps 400%.
> 
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>  
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn 
>  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>   
>   Adapting the web to all users
>             Including those with disabilities
>  
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>  
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:20 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com <mailto:alands289@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Laura, et al.
>  
> I’m concerned with the wording from the GitHub link for the latest proposal,
>  
> It starts out with the statement by allanj-uaaag
> Current: Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text on a full-screen window.
>  
> This is an inaccurate statement.
> The current 1.4.4 allows for scrolling if necessary in the Examples for Success:
> “A user uses a zoom function in his user agent to change the scale of the content. All the content scales uniformly, and the user agent provides scroll bars, if necessary.”
>  
> I also think it is physically impossible to increase to 1100% without horizontal scrolling.
>  
> Is their an actual font size that the 1100% value is trying to achieve?
>  
> 1100% creates a totally different end resultant  font size  on a 10” tablet as it does on a 15” laptop or a 24” monitor. What the user gets with 1100% on a larger monitor would not be nearly what they get on a smaller monitor/screen size. 
>  
> Should we state that it needs to be 1100% for 15” monitors but something like 1800” for 10” screens and 2200% for 6” smart phones.
>  
> Would we also need to make sure that touch target sizes for buttons and icons need to be scalable to some value at a similar percentage as well for low vision and users with dexterity and motor skill issues?
>  
>  
> Alan Smith, CSTE, CQA
> 
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>  
> From: Alastair Campbell <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM
> To: Laura Carlson <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Jonathan Avila <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>; WCAG <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Low Vision Task Force <mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
>  
> Laura wrote:
> The latest LVTF proposal for an SC is 1100% based on Gordon Leege's studies.
> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5 <https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5>
>  
> Thanks for the heads up, I don’t think that’s realistic so I’ve commented there.
>  
> -Alastair