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

RE: 1.4.4 Text Resize question

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:28:33 -0600
To: 'Sean Hayes' <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, 'Cynthia Shelly' <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <01d301c870c9$bdf84140$186fa8c0@NC84301>

That makes sense.


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 Sean Hayes
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 5:00 AM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden; Cynthia Shelly; 'WCAG'
> Subject: RE: 1.4.4 Text Resize question
>
>
> 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 18:28:55 GMT

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