W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: CTL + Count for Firefox and Safari

From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:41:59 -0400
Cc: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-id: <2EEBCFA2-1B77-4943-B54A-CBC132F4319A@accessibiliteweb.com>
To: WayneEDick@gmail.com
Good evening Wayne,

So, would you be comfortable simply going 4 times for both Safari and Firefox? To keep it simple?

/Denis



On 2013-03-10, at 3:36 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> I tried it with 3 and 4 clicks with Safari.  There was no appreciable
> difference.  Any slopping over boundaries that occurred with 4 clicks
> and didn't with 3 clicks probably wouldn't happen with 200% exactly.
> 
> It's pretty cool how exact Firefox worked our. My test was to count
> repeated patterns of "MMM ".  Since it was a rectangle I took the
> square root.  Not exact since I didn't have perfect squares, but
> close.  The sort(xy) is called the geometric mean of x and y.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> On 3/8/13, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Three on Safari is enough.  It's not far off.
>> 
>> Wayne
>> 
>> On 3/8/13, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com> wrote:
>>> Hello, there,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013-03-08, at 5:16 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Can we just say four times and call that good enough for an easy check
>>>> that "covers just a few accessibility issues and are designed to be
>>>> quick
>>>> and easy, rather than definitive. A web page could seem to pass these
>>>> checks, yet still have accessibility barriers. More robust evaluation is
>>>> needed to evaluate all issues comprehensively." ?
>>> 
>>> Considering we're not going for full conformance testing results, I think
>>> it
>>> would be wiser to align on 4 or 5 "ctrl-+", and not bother so much with
>>> the
>>> fact that it's really 200% or not.
>>> 
>>> The important part is getting developers to think about low vision and SC
>>> 1.4.4 when developing.
>>> 
>>> Stepping away from the SC, and closing in on the intent should be what
>>> matters most here.
>>> 
>>> IMHO of course. ;p
>>> 
>>> /Denis
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 04:42:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 March 2013 04:42:24 GMT