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

I did it. I generated 1100% with word wrapping that was more efficient than
a screen magnification interface. It is possible.

People who are blind have braille. People with severe low vision also need
a self paced medium. Large print is it. I love screen readers, but I also
use large print when I need to study something difficult like the WAI-ARIA
1.1 document. It is long and difficult.  The screen reader got me through
the normal parts, and large print gave me the rest. I couldn't understand
that accessible name calculation just listening. I had to look and ponder a
lot.

Gordon Legge showed that you could get 1000% enlargement on an iPad 3. He
could have taken it higher but I had asked him to allow lines up to 15
character. He was trying to demonstrate that someone with 20/200 acuity
could get a 1000% enlargement on an iPad 3 and still get 15 characters per
line.  It is in his letter to the U. S. Access Board regarding the 508
Refresh. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATBCB-2015-0002-0019.

Note with 15 characters per line and three or four lines per page you can
get 6 to 10 words per page. That is a useful block of text.

I'm not saying everyone needs extreme text resize. But many with severe low
vision need it for a self paced medium. Extreme large print fills that need.


On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> 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
> 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
> <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> 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
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> 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> 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 <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM
> *To: *Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Jonathan Avila
> <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> *Cc: *public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Low Vision
> Task Force <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
>
> Thanks for the heads up, I don’t think that’s realistic so I’ve commented
> there.
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>