W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: 1.4.4 Text Resize question

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:00:17 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90EEC9D914694641A8358AA190DACB3D1B3B93698D@EA-EXMSG-C334.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

I would say there needs to be less functionality/information when scaled in order for there to be a 'loss' - so it doesn't necessarily fail, however I agree with Gregg, fix the page for everyone and then see if there is a loss when scaled.

Sean Hayes
Incubation Lab
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft

Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 16 February 2008 01:42
To: Cynthia Shelly; 'WCAG'
Subject: RE: 1.4.4 Text Resize question


I would say that it technically fails -- it ALSO fails for others so it
theoretically should fail.  But WCAG doesn't specifically say that if it is
broken for all -----

But a broken page is not one to get all up in arms for.  Presumably it will
be fixed and should be evaluated then.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:39 PM
> To: WCAG
> Subject: 1.4.4 Text Resize question
>
>
> I'm evaluating a site against WCAG 2.0, and I've run into an
> edge case for 1.4.4.
>
> The page contains a table that is clipped so that there is a
> loss of content.  Seems like it would fail 1.4.4, except...
> It's clipped with the default text size too.  There's a loss
> of content for all users.  Clearly this is a bug, but is it a
> failure of 1.4.4?  I'm inclined to say No, because there the
> content is missing for everyone.  Thoughts?  Something we
> need to clarify in the understanding?
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 11:00:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:52 GMT