W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Issue 77 Resize Content SC

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 07:52:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZS9bY2Ju9tsEPXK6=mXeg=wBNsN1oXfMbzCkQR2ZnZPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I can live with 400%. I don't know if WebAim can.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/250






Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> Thanks Alastair - Yes, at this point based on group input/past review let
> us know David if you can't live with 400% or have some new information.
>
> Josh
>
>
> Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
> > I suggest we drop back to 300%.
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> There was quite a lot of evidence, rational and justification in the
> issues review [1], could you provide some for that statement?
>
>
>
> The comments on the amount of resize/zoom (inside and out of the WG)
> seemed to fall into two camps: They were either happy with 400%, or thought
> anything over 150-200% was too difficult, so I’m not sure where 300% came
> from?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Resize_
> content_issues_review
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joshue O Connor
> Director | InterAccess.ie
>
Received on Friday, 5 May 2017 11:53:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 May 2017 11:53:01 UTC