- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:48:12 -0400
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- CC: alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP311001F2ADE3639C17A8B7FE3A0@phx.gbl>
Laura provided the following link to their discussion about 1100% on LVTF https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5 I personally sense that even 400% would be difficult to require... but 300% might be reasonable... 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 10:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 17:48:48 UTC