Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content

Why not use the essential exception from 1.4.5? Or some variation of it...
would its presence in WCAG not be a precedent?

"... unless a particular presentation of text is essential to the
information being conveyed."

WCAG dfn... Essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the
information or functionality of the content, and information and
functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform

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 Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> yep
>
> I think we are all in agreement.
> - horizontal scrolling is a problem for many with many causes (not just
> font enlargement )
> - sometimes - for some types of content - the cure would be worse than the
> horizontal scrolling
> - so we want to require it some place but not all places
> - we can think of examples — but we havent yet found a ‘rule’ for what it
> would apply to or not that is not subjective
>
> no?
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:55 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org
> <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 4, 2016 4:35 PM
>
> 1) linearizing a table must be done in both directions since sometimes you
> want to compare columns and sometimes rows.
>
> if you want to do both — then only the table works
>
> I worry that tables are tables for a reason —  (and not linear lists)
>
> I would suggest that if you forces tables to linearize that were too wide
> for the page — you would see a user revolt amongst most users.
> *[Jason] We’re in agreement so far. The problem is that I think an
> “essential exception” is too strict, or at least insufficiently defined to
> serve our purposes here. Table linearization (to return to the example) is
> required by some braille style guidelines, and used to be recommended on
> the Web as an accessibility strategy, so it seems at least debatable
> whether the tabular nature of the material is essential to its purpose.*
>
> And that still leaves Maps and all the other examples.
> *[Jason] Yes, though my proposal was designed to address those too, as was
> David’s.*
>
>
> and we can’t use lists for exceptions
>
>
> We need to figure this out   (how to clearly define when it should or
> should not apply) without using any judgement.
>
> And we also cannot include the phrase “user can” in the SC since we don’t
> know who the user is…   (another trap we kept falling into and climbing out
> of in the WCAG 2.0 work.
> *[Jason] I agree, although in this case we know that the user can perceive
> the visual presentation (even if it needs to be resized).*
> *The idea behind my proposal was that scrolling should be avoided unless
> the designs which do so are worse than imposing scrolling on the user. The
> question is how to characterize “worse”. More cognitive load (but that’s
> highly user and task-dependent)? The function or purpose can’t be achieved
> without a presentation that exceeds the size of the viewport after text is
> resized?*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
>
>
>