- From: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:56:36 -0700
- To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "public-pfwg@w3.org" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5435C124.1020407@oracle.com>
Cynthia,
Please see inline...
On 10/8/2014 3:22 PM, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>
> I see it as an accessibility issue for users with mild to moderate
> vision impairment (and everyone over 40). Users should not be
> required to set a global setting to see a particular thing. Global
> font settings also don't address the scenario where the too-small
> thing is not text. Profile pictures are my favorite example, but
> icons, buttons and links are sometimes too small too.
>
These are usability issues. I agree that I too find it annoying when web
sites have turned off zoom for no good reason - but there are certain UI
models where it is would be very inconsistent and confusing if zoom were
allowed. If the UI has been designed well then all of the things that
you cite would not be an issue. Profile pictures, for example, should
allow a user to tap on the picture to open a full size zoomable version
of the picture. Icons should not be too small if well designed. They
could also use icon fonts and also respond to the global settings.
Buttons and links in a native application should respond to the font
size settings.
> I think we should make some recommendations, via WCAG techniques and
> failures, about where applications should support zooming, when it
> makes sense to override it with custom zooming, and when font sizing
> is sufficient.
>
I think we have to agree to disagree about this although I have no
problem if someone wants to create some positive techniques around this
or some combination failures where zoom is suppressed and there is no
other way (either OS or application specific) to increase the font size
a sufficient amount.
It is clearly not a WCAG failure if zoom is supressed and if text can be
resized to 200% by some method and I would be adamantly opposed to any
failure which stated as much. If you think there should be a failure for
this then you would have to look to the next version of WCAG. However,
personally I think that there should not be any WCAG requirements for
any specific technology such as zoom. What happens when technology
advances and zoom becomes an obsolete way of meeting this requirement?
> Since I see it as an accessibility issue, I'm leery of a market
> argument. Users with disabilities are too often in the 20% of the
> 80-20 rule.
>
If you are citing anyone over 40 as being in this category I think the
market is large enough to be listened to :)
Regards,
James
>
> *From:*James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:06 PM
> *To:* Cynthia Shelly; public-pfwg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Action 1500 - fixed zoom
>
> For some apps I agree with you. For others I do not. This is why it
> should be an app-specific decision as to whether this is the right
> thing to do. I see zoom availability as a potential usability issue
> and not an accessibility issue, so long as there is a method to
> accomplish the text resize functionality. So IMO we should let the
> market decide if this is something that users want.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
> On 10/8/2014 1:34 PM, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>
> I'm less convinced on this scenario. It bugs me when apps on my
> phone won't zoom, frankly. I don't want to set large fonts
> everywhere, but sometimes want to zoom in on a particular part of
> an app. I see this as a shortcoming in the native apps, and not
> something to mimic in the web platform. Zooming is temporary and
> specific, where system settings are permanent and pervasive. They
> are very different user behaviors. IMHO, both should be
> universally supported.
>
> *From:*James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:15 AM
> *To:* public-pfwg@w3.org <mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Action 1500 - fixed zoom
>
> A further type of applications where, in my opinion, it is
> legitimate to disable zooming are web applications which are
> attempting to mimic the look and feel of native apps.
> On an iOS (I'm unsure how native apps look on other platforms)
> device, for example, native applications normally do not respond
> to zoom. Take a look at the iOS Settings application. We have
> developers who want their web apps to mimic native apps.
> It is possible in Mobile Safari to use the fonts and the zooming
> levels specified by the OS by specifying various vendor-specific
> font styles in the style sheet. I would prefer to focus our
> attentions on ways to allow the user's font preferences to be used
> in web applications rather than working against a feature which
> actually can enhance usability when used in the correct ways in
> the correct types of applications.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> On 10/8/2014 10:45 AM, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/1500
>
> I was given a couple of use cases where I think this is
> legitimate. 1) is a game like Cut the Rope, where multi-touch
> is used for game interaction rather than zooming. 2) is Bing
> Maps, where the default zooming behavior is disabled and the
> app has created custom zooming behavior in javascript. I still
> worry about authors misusing this for 'normal' apps where
> users would expect zooming. I think WCAG failures/techniques
> are probably the best path here. I will also look into
> documenting accessibility concerns for these features in MSDN.
>
> IE supports the following ways to disable zooming.
> . <meta name="viewport" content="user-scalable=no">
> . <meta name="viewport" content="minimum-scale=1,
> maximum-scale=1">
> . document.addEventListener("touchmove", function(e)
> {e.preventDefault()})
> . html { touch-action: none; }
> . html { -ms-content-zoom-limit-min: 1;
> -ms-content-zoom-limit-max: 1; }
>
> --
> Regards, James
>
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1
> 415 987 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918>
> OracleCorporate Architecture
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed
> to developing practices and products that help protect the
> environment
>
> --
> Regards, James
>
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415
> 987 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918>
> OracleCorporate Architecture
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>
--
Regards, James
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 22:57:12 UTC