- From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:41:59 -0400
- To: WayneEDick@gmail.com
- Cc: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
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 UTC