RE: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting

I wouldn't think that whether a particular browser supports 200% or not
would be the author's problem.   The guideline is that the content can be
zoomed to 200%.    Other browsers could be used to test this.


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Makoto Ueki
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid
> Cc: TeamB
> Subject: Re: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Loretta, thank you for the note.
>
> > Loretta - add discussiono to How To Meet 1.4.5, 1.4.6 about why 200%
>
> It is important for the WG to present the reason why it is
> required, whenever we require the authors to do something
> like "200%", "3 seconds", "10 times" and so on. The rationale
> would be fine even if it is not research-based.
>
> Another my concern about "200%" is how the authors can be
> responsible for "200%". How can the authors ensure that text
> can be resized up to 200% if the  future version of the user
> agents won't provide the zoom function up to "200%"? For
> example, if IE 8 or later limit the zoom function up to 180%
> in the future, what can the authers do? Though the Japanese
> version of IE 7 can zoom text up to 400%.
>
> The readers will ask us such a question if we specify the
> value of 200% or anything else in the SC. Actually I couldn't
> understand it when I read the How to Meet documents on 1.4.5
> and 1.4.6.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>
>
>
> 2007/1/24, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
> >
> > Sean - send Loretta example for How to Meet 1.4.6 All -
> send Loretta
> > resources for dynamic layout Gez - review techniques for
> How To Meet
> > 1.4.5, 1.4.6 for correctness, completeness Loretta - add
> discussiono
> > to How To Meet 1.4.5, 1.4.6 about why 200% Sorcha - Compose
> responses
> > to conformance/baseline comments, based on the revised Conformance
> > section
> >
> >
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 23:23:34 UTC