- From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:05:32 -0800
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm beginning to agree with Alastair and David that this should be
part of reflow. All the difficulties above go away.
The line
* {max-width: 20em !important;}
will do it already on most responsive sites.
Thanks All, Wayne
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:42 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> If a particular mobile browser can reflow, (which I haven't seen), then what
> is stopping it from passing the SC without the exception?
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
> Tel: 613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub
>
> 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
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:50 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> > There is an exception for mobile devices.
>> (1) The user-agent provides no means of re-flowing content.
>>
>> Except, I've seen content re-flow on mobile devices, as long as the page
>> is not locked down, so I don't think that would pass muster (IMHO).
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:49 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >you cannot have it all (i.e. at a fixed width of a device - say a cell
>>> > phone - if you enlarge your text to be very large (I'm seeing 400% being
>>> > tossed around a fair bit as a new normal), then even 25 characters will very
>>> > likely introduce horizontal scrolling,
>>>
>>> There is an exception for mobile devices.
>>> (1) The user-agent provides no means of re-flowing content.
>>>
>>> > if you enlarge your text to be very large (I'm seeing 400% being tossed
>>> > around
>>>
>>> The SC is to be tested without enlarging the text.
>>> "
>>> ...
>>> a mechanism is available to adjust the line length
>>> ...
>>> *without increasing the font in the user agent,*...
>>>
>>> I think for the first draft we introduce the SCs separately " (1) line
>>> length, (2) One column, (3) text zoom
>>>
>>> I think this one stands on its own ok and meets the 8 requirements s for
>>> acceptance ... I share your concerns about whether it's 25 or some larger
>>> threshold, but besides that I think it holds together and is ready for
>>> public scrutiny. I'm 25 hours into this SC, and hitting my limit of
>>> bandwidth, unless someone else wants to take it over.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David MacDonald
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>>>
>>> Tel: 613.235.4902
>>>
>>> LinkedIn
>>>
>>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>
>>> GitHub
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:17 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Laura,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and thanks for reminding me of that, although I am unsure whether
>>>> Wayne is/was using Gmail to respond to this thread. Still, it is a useful
>>>> metric to keep in mind.
>>>>
>>>> However, if I am to understand the proposed SC requirement here, I
>>>> should be able to somehow shorten those line-lengths to nothing greater than
>>>> 25 characters, and how to do that consistently across multiple web-sites /
>>>> web-pages is unclear as this time.
>>>>
>>>> What does the page author have to do (or not do) to ensure that users
>>>> who have this requirement can meet success? I believe I understand the need
>>>> that is driving this proposed SC, but have not seen any technique or example
>>>> of how this could be achieved.
>>>>
>>>> I also continue to struggle with the intersection between line length,
>>>> font-face and size, fixed view-port widths, and the issues around horizontal
>>>> scrolling, as it seems you cannot have it all (i.e. at a fixed width of a
>>>> device - say a cell phone - if you enlarge your text to be very large (I'm
>>>> seeing 400% being tossed around a fair bit as a new normal), then even 25
>>>> characters will very likely introduce horizontal scrolling, due to the sheer
>>>> size of each character.)
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Laura Carlson
>>>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>
>>>>> You wrote to Wayne:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I am looking forward to seeing your examples,
>>>>> > while at the same time observing that your
>>>>> > email's longest line is 72 characters in
>>>>> > length.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gmail's plain text mode foces hard breaks so no line is longer than 78
>>>>> characters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check:
>>>>> https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/gmail-plain-text
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>> Laura
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/11/17, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Hi Wayne,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thank you for weighing in here, as yes, there is a struggle to
>>>>> > completely
>>>>> > understand what you are asking for in the Success Criteria. I am
>>>>> > looking
>>>>> > forward to seeing your examples, while at the same time observing
>>>>> > that your
>>>>> > email's longest line is 72 characters in length.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You wrote: "The point here is the user can choose" - which gets a
>>>>> > 100%
>>>>> > thumbs up from me, but what does that mean for the author (as opposed
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > the software/hardware tools being used by the user)?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > And when you speak of 25 characters as being "a little big" what do
>>>>> > you
>>>>> > mean by that (please)? 25 characters at 16 pt. is not very big; 25
>>>>> > characters at 32pt. is big, and 25 characters at 32pt. X 400%
>>>>> > magnification
>>>>> > is enormous, so at a minimum I suspect we need to be also stating a
>>>>> > unit
>>>>> > measurement at a fixed magnification point for "testing" and
>>>>> > compliance
>>>>> > purposes. Do you have any thoughts there?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > One thing I want to address however is your claim "...because today
>>>>> > hyphenation is not well supported." What is this assertion based
>>>>> > upon? The
>>>>> > research I've done shows that this is not the case, that currently
>>>>> > support
>>>>> > for CSS hyphenation, while not at 100%, is actually quite good today
>>>>> > (source: http://caniuse.com/#search=hyphens) I hate to sound like a
>>>>> > broken
>>>>> > record, but I've posted this source now 3 times - can you or somebody
>>>>> > else
>>>>> > either refute it or accept it as "true" today? If true, can we
>>>>> > dispense
>>>>> > with the "hyphenation is not well supported" claims on this list?
>>>>> > Thanks!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > JF
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Hi All,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 50 characters is too much. 30 is too much. 25 is a little big but
>>>>> >> most
>>>>> >> people with low vision can live with it. I know that you have a
>>>>> >> rough
>>>>> >> time setting up examples right now, but they are not hard to do with
>>>>> >> practice. I'll get to that tomorrow.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The point here is the user can choose. Normal users probably won't
>>>>> >> choose to shorten text because authors construct columns of text for
>>>>> >> normal users. Users with dyslexia will probably choose moderate
>>>>> >> lines
>>>>> >> 40-55. People who need enlargement and people who have medical field
>>>>> >> loss will choose 25.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> From the usability point of view character count is the item to
>>>>> >> measure because it is based on lexical data (letters, digits,
>>>>> >> punctuation, etc.). Word wrapping is a lexical operation and so is
>>>>> >> reading. You don't write a 1-meter essay. You write 1000 words. if
>>>>> >> you
>>>>> >> want to measure readable of language you must use linguistic
>>>>> >> measures.
>>>>> >> EM like measures might do.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The key her is user choice. Suppose a German has peripheral field
>>>>> >> loss, a common enough occurrence. The overwhelming number of German
>>>>> >> words are less than 15 characters. See
>>>>> >> http://www.news-by-design.com/infographic/language-length/ .
>>>>> >> 25-letter words occur, but not many. So you have a choice: You can
>>>>> >> short lines and set your user style sheet to break words (because
>>>>> >> today hyphenation is not well supported). Or, you can choose wider
>>>>> >> lines. Your choice.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> it is not exact but 15em usually gives about 25 characters.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> To say authors aren't used to short columns is just silly. In four
>>>>> >> column format 3 of four columns will be close to 25 characters or
>>>>> >> less.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This is not as hard as it seems. Also if you have normal vision your
>>>>> >> conventional knowledge will not do you much good.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> i suggest finding a cardboard tube, like a toilet paper tube. Cut it
>>>>> >> down to where you can only fit 25 characters inside and then try to
>>>>> >> read one of these email string through the cardboard tube.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> if you have peripheral field loss or use a screen magnifier, lens or
>>>>> >> CCTV that's what it's like. This problem can be solved, but not by
>>>>> >> making lines too long.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> More to come.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Wayne
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, David MacDonald
>>>>> >> <david100@sympatico.ca>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> > CSS hyphenation (when it is supported) offers the author control,
>>>>> >> > which
>>>>> >> is
>>>>> >> > fine...
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Cheers,
>>>>> >> > David MacDonald
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Tel: 613.235.4902
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > LinkedIn
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > GitHub
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > 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
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:28 PM, John Foliot
>>>>> >> > <john.foliot@deque.com>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> > most (all) bowsers don't add hyphens
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Sorry David, I have to disagree: most browsers today support the
>>>>> >> >> CSS
>>>>> >> >> hyphens attribute
>>>>> >> >> (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text/#hyphens-property),
>>>>> >> >> confirmed by CanIUse here: http://caniuse.com/#search=hyphens
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> See also:
>>>>> >> >> http://blog.fontdeck.com/post/9037028497/hyphens
>>>>> >> >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/hyphens
>>>>> >> >> https://css-tricks.com/almanac/properties/h/hyphenate/
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> JF
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM, David MacDonald <
>>>>> >> david100@sympatico.ca>
>>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> > I would propose we look to Root EMS instead for at least part
>>>>> >> >>> > of
>>>>> >> >>> > this
>>>>> >> >>> > proposal, and that we also include a magnification point
>>>>> >> >>> > (200%?
>>>>> >> 400%?) as
>>>>> >> >>> > also part of the requirement:
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> I think the latest proposal addresses the magnification issue by
>>>>> >> >>> requiring that the SC be met without zooming text. The downside
>>>>> >> >>> of
>>>>> >> REMs are
>>>>> >> >>> that it is harder to understand, it is a specific technology,
>>>>> >> >>> and it
>>>>> >> is a
>>>>> >> >>> relative measurement. Patrick, Jon A., what are your thoughts?
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> I would also like Makoto and Swetank to respond to the
>>>>> >> >>> hyphenation
>>>>> >> >>> situation that most (all) bowsers don't add hyphens, and that
>>>>> >> >>> CSS can
>>>>> >> be use
>>>>> >> >>> to override any hyphenation.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> Cheers,
>>>>> >> >>> David MacDonald
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> Tel: 613.235.4902
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> LinkedIn
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> GitHub
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> 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
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, John Foliot
>>>>> >> >>> <john.foliot@deque.com>
>>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> David wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> > We have an established precedent in 1.4.8 of using characters
>>>>> >> >>>> > to
>>>>> >> >>>> > measure line length.
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> Hi David,
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> While we may have precedent there, SC 1.4.8 is a AAA Success
>>>>> >> >>>> Criteria,
>>>>> >> >>>> and I am hard-pressed personally to recall a site that meets
>>>>> >> >>>> (and
>>>>> >> reports
>>>>> >> >>>> compliance to) that SC consistently. As we've seen, "character"
>>>>> >> >>>> is a
>>>>> >> very
>>>>> >> >>>> imprecise unit of measurement.
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> I think we need to step back a bit; what is the real goal we
>>>>> >> >>>> are
>>>>> >> trying
>>>>> >> >>>> to achieve here? I don't think it has anything to do with
>>>>> >> >>>> actual
>>>>> >> character
>>>>> >> >>>> count (per-se), but rather that we need developers to not break
>>>>> >> >>>> text
>>>>> >> re-flow
>>>>> >> >>>> (perhaps to a minimum of 25 REMs - Root EMs). Level-set: LVTF,
>>>>> >> >>>> is
>>>>> >> this the
>>>>> >> >>>> real "goal" here?
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> However, given fixed view-port sizes and magnification there
>>>>> >> >>>> will
>>>>> >> >>>> necessitate a trade-off, or else I could envision developers
>>>>> >> >>>> will
>>>>> >> create one
>>>>> >> >>>> line in their document at font-size:40px - perhaps an h1 - and
>>>>> >> >>>> then
>>>>> >> use that
>>>>> >> >>>> as the 'measuring point': 25 X 40px = 1000px, which, as a
>>>>> >> >>>> "baseline,
>>>>> >> would
>>>>> >> >>>> then "allow" paragraph text at 16px. to far exceed the 25
>>>>> >> >>>> character
>>>>> >> count
>>>>> >> >>>> being proposed (1000 / 16 = 62.5 "characters") It is for this
>>>>> >> >>>> reason
>>>>> >> that I
>>>>> >> >>>> would propose we look to Root EMS instead for at least part of
>>>>> >> >>>> this
>>>>> >> >>>> proposal, and that we also include a magnification point (200%?
>>>>> >> 400%?) as
>>>>> >> >>>> also part of the requirement:
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> <draft> For the visual presentation of all text, text should
>>>>> >> >>>> naturally
>>>>> >> >>>> re-flow to a minimum of 25 REMs at 200% magnification without
>>>>> >> horizontal
>>>>> >> >>>> scrolling, with the following exceptions. </draft>
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> ...or something along those lines. By moving away from actual
>>>>> >> characters
>>>>> >> >>>> (and their "imperfect" unit of measurement), we will likely
>>>>> >> >>>> address
>>>>> >> most
>>>>> >> >>>> concerns around internationalization, and with a more precise
>>>>> >> >>>> unit
>>>>> >> >>>> of
>>>>> >> >>>> measurement, we will be able to better test (mechanically)
>>>>> >> >>>> compliance
>>>>> >> to the
>>>>> >> >>>> new SC. (I'd also look to have this be an AA requirement, as
>>>>> >> >>>> opposed
>>>>> >> to an
>>>>> >> >>>> A, but that is a different discussion...)
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> JF
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, John Foliot
>>>>> >> >>>> <john.foliot@deque.com>
>>>>> >> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> David wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> > No browser that I know would do this:
>>>>> >> >>>>> >
>>>>> >> >>>>> > "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of
>>>>> >> >>>>> > their
>>>>> >> >>>>> > establish-
>>>>> >> >>>>> > ment party for now and forever"
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> Erm... https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text/#hyphens-property
>>>>> >> >>>>> and http://caniuse.com/#search=hyphens
>>>>> >> >>>>> (which suggests support in most browsers with the exception of
>>>>> >> >>>>> Android's native browser)
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> JF
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 AM, David MacDonald
>>>>> >> >>>>> <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> Perhaps I'm missing something. For example say there is the
>>>>> >> >>>>>> line
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their
>>>>> >> >>>>>> establishment party for now and forever"
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> And lets say that at the end of the word "their" we have a
>>>>> >> >>>>>> count
>>>>> >> >>>>>> of
>>>>> >> 45
>>>>> >> >>>>>> characters (I didn't count). The browser window is narrowed
>>>>> >> >>>>>> to 50
>>>>> >> >>>>>> characters. Then the line will wrap after "their" and it
>>>>> >> >>>>>> would
>>>>> >> >>>>>> pass.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their
>>>>> >> >>>>>> (45
>>>>> >> >>>>>> characters)
>>>>> >> >>>>>> establishment party for now and forever ..."
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> This would pass because there are 50 or less characters on
>>>>> >> >>>>>> that
>>>>> >> line.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> No browser that I know would do this:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their
>>>>> >> >>>>>> establish-
>>>>> >> >>>>>> ment party for now and forever"
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> In other words.... most lines will be less than 50 characters
>>>>> >> >>>>>> if
>>>>> >> >>>>>> 50
>>>>> >> is
>>>>> >> >>>>>> the threshold we decide on.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> We have an established precedent in 1.4.8 of using characters
>>>>> >> >>>>>> to
>>>>> >> >>>>>> measure line length. I think in a dot release we should stick
>>>>> >> >>>>>> with
>>>>> >> that,
>>>>> >> >>>>>> unless I'm missing something.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> >> >>>>>> David MacDonald
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> Tel: 613.235.4902
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> GitHub
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> 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
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Patrick H. Lauke
>>>>> >> >>>>>> <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 11/01/2017 14:12, David MacDonald wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Shwetank
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Can you help us understand how hyphenation works in those
>>>>> >> languages?
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> In
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> English and French, (the languages I speak), the web the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> page
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> just
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> wraps
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> the entire word if it doesn't fit. So there is not
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> generally
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> hyphenation
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> for web writing.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Regardless of language, hyphenation will be up to the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> browser to
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> do
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (support isn't fantastic / cross-browser just yet), or would
>>>>> >> require
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> additional JS solutions that forcibly break and hyphenate
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> words
>>>>> >> (which would
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> likely lead to issues where AT would start to read word
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> fragments
>>>>> >> rather
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> than full words). So there are potential technical
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> limitations to
>>>>> >> overcome
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> here as well.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> P
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> David MacDonald
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Tel: 613.235.4902
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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 Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Shwetank Dixit
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> <shwetank@barrierbreak.com
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:shwetank@barrierbreak.com>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> FWIW, I agree with John that character length is not a
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> good
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> criteria
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> at all for this purpose, especially from the viewpoint
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> of
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> non-english languages. I believe the research and
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> guidelines
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> mentioned in this discussion have not included
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> languages
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> from
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> scripts apart from the Latin script (please correct me
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> if
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I’m
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> wrong)
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> like Devnagari, Gurkumikhi, or any from the CJK ones
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> for
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> example.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I am especially concerned about the possibility of
>>>>> >> significantly
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> increased ‘hyphenation’ that this could result in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> (which
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> John
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> also
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> mentioned) causing bigger problems from a cognitive
>>>>> >> perspective.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> —
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Shwetank
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Michael Pluke
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I can see that the choice of characters as the unit of
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> measurement
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> can result in very different end-results that you get
>>>>> >> depending
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> on
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the chosen font-size and font-face. This may make this
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> less
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> useful from an LV perspective. ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> However I still think that, from a cognitive
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> perspective,
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> it
>>>>> >> is
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> relevant and important to set a maximum line length in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Long lines with many words/characters are demonstrably
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>> >> to
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> read for everyone but, most particularly for people
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> with
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> dyslexia. The 80 characters in SC 1.4.8
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-
>>>>> >> audio-contrast-visual-presentation.html>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> will cause significant difficulties for many people
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> with
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> dyslexia.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> EA has quoted several research-based sources that
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> realistic
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> line-length proposals. From reading the extract from
>>>>> >> 'Dyslexia
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the Digital Age' that EA linked-to (
>>>>> >> http://tinyurl.com/jra7hk3)
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> don’t think that it gives very strong evidence that 55
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> is the only choice. I’m a great fan of the realistic
>>>>> >> proposals
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that Luz Rello makes (based on her research
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (http://www.luzrello.com/Publications_files/uais2015.pdf
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.luzrello.com/Publications_files/uais2015.pdf>))
>>>>> >> so
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> have confidence for specifying line lengths in the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 44-66
>>>>> >> range
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (although it was non-dyslexic people who benefitted
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> most
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> from
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 44
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> character columns). The British Dyslexia Style Guide
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/common/ckeditor/filemanager/
>>>>> >> userfiles/About_Us/policies/Dyslexia_Style_Guide.pdf
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/common/ckeditor/
>>>>> >> filemanager/userfiles/About_Us/policies/Dyslexia_Style_Guide.pdf>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> recommends that “Lines should not be too long: 60 to70
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters.”____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Conclusion*: Based on all of the above I think
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that:____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> * To benefit LV users we should avoid having SCs
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> give
>>>>> >> a
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> line length based on the number of characters;____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> * To benefit people with dyslexia (and also the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> general
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> population) the 1.4.8-based 80 character maximum
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> proposal #51
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/51>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> should
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> be reduced to a figure no greater than 70
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> probably no less than 60).____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Mike____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *From:*John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>]
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 10 January 2017 23:56
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Length of line____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> TL;DR - Using 'character' as a unit of measurement is
>>>>> >> extremely
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> problematic, and I do not support it's use here. ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> **************____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Some thoughts after today's call.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I personally have significant concerns over
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> prescribing a
>>>>> >> fixed
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> number of characters, especially such a low number, as
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> a
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> of
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> measurement. ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Internationalization:*____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> When we factor in both Internationalization and
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> languages
>>>>> >> other
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> than English, we will quickly arrive at a point where
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> number
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 25 is smaller than numerous words in different
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> languages
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_words
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_words>), which
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> will
>>>>> >> then
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> require word hyphenization (most probably supplied by
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> content
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> author, until such time as AI can do that job
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> seamlessly).
>>>>> >> This
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> then suggests to me that we will start to see 'forced'
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> line-breaks
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> again (using the presentational <br>), which could
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> significant impact on screen flow in RWD (Responsive)
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> layouts
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (i.e. the cure being worse the the symptom).____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Font-size and font-face choices:*____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Equally, as mentioned on the call, another factor in
>>>>> >> measuring
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> this, related to horizontal scrolling, is font-size.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> For
>>>>> >> those
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> of
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> you using HTML-rich mail clients, and using a 25
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> character-count
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> example taken from
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> http://www.litscape.com/words/length/25_letters/25_letter_
>>>>> >> words.html
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.litscape.com/words/length/25_letters/25_
>>>>> >> letter_words.html>:____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (Gmail's____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> '____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> S____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> mall' sizing)____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical (Gmail's____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'Normal' sizing)____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical (Gmail's____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'Large' sizing)____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical (Gmail's____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'Huge' sizing)____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Q: How do we test for "success" here? Even the final
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> line
>>>>> >> above
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (Gmail's "Huge" font-size) could introduce horizontal
>>>>> >> scrolling
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> at
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> some level of magnification on some devices, yet at 25
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> "meets" the current wording of the proposed SC. ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Additionally, different font-faces will have different
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> font-width
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characteristics, depending on the font-face chosen.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> For
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> example:____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical (Gmail
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'sans-serif',
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> size
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'normal')____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical (Gmail 'Verdana',
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> size
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'normal') ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> electroencephalographical (Gmail 'Wide', size
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 'normal')____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ...once again, depending on the font-face choice we
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> have 3
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> different line-lengths, and so I question the overall
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>> >> of
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> "character" as a unit of measurement here.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *How to 'Succeed'/Author push-back:*____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The current proposed language for this SC reads:____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> For the visual presentation of all text, a
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> mechanism is
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> available such that line length is user
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> adjustable, to
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 25
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters, with no two-dimensional scrolling
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>> >> and
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> with the following exceptions.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> However, it is unclear what a page author can or
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> should do
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> meet
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> this requirement____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> , as it very much feels like a User-Agent requirement
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> as
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> much
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> as
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> anything else. For SC 1.4.8, one technique is ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> G204
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2016/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20160105/
>>>>> >> G204>:
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> /Not interfering with the user agent's reflow of text
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> as
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> viewing window is narrowed/____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> /, /which seems to me to at least address the larger
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (avoid horizontal scrolling) without prescribing a
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> line-length.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Finally, the current Success Criteria that requires an
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 80
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> character line-length (____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> SC 1.4.8
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-
>>>>> >> audio-contrast-visual-presentation.html>)
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> is a AAA Success Criteria requirement, and yet this
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> new
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> SC is at level A, at roughly 1/3 the 80-char limit.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Sadly (but not totally unreasonably) ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I suspect that we will get significant push-back at
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> level
>>>>> >> A____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> .____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> JF____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:31 PM, David MacDonald
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm the manager of Issue #57 line length.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/57
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/57>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I was asked to explain why 25 characters was
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> chosen as
>>>>> >> the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> threshold. I deferred to the LVTF____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> since I did not write that requirement____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> . One point that was mentioned was that 25
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> is
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> about
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the width of most news article columns.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I did a survey of several top news sites on the
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> web and
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> measured the length of characters when text size
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> is
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 100%
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (no zoom)
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -CNN 74____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters without counting spaces 87 with spaces.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> could
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> narrow to 35 (w/ spaces) in Responsive
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -NBC 61 no spaces 73 with spaces, could narrow to
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 39
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> (w/
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> spaces)
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -ABC NEWS 81 no spaces 92 Spaces, could narrow to
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 43 in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> responsive
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -FoxNews 67 no space 79 spaces could narrow to 45
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> responsive
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -Le Droit french 74 no space, 86 with spaces, no
>>>>> >> responsive
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -Google News 73 No Spaces 87 with spaces could
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> narrow
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> to
>>>>> >> 44
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> in
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> responsive
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> - Huff post French 67 no spaces 79 with spaces no
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> responsive____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> N____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> one of these sites passed the new SC proposal of
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 25
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters. They all went to horizontal scroll
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> when
>>>>> >> window
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> was
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> narrowed less than those ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> minimum character ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> widths shown above.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Do we____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> want to make the minimum a little wider, say 45
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> or 50
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters.
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> For reference, the following is about 25
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> characters:____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> "This test assesses basic"____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> David MacDonald____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:(613)%20235-4902>____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <http://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>____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- ____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> John Foliot____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Deque Systems Inc.____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> inclusion____
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> --
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ |
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> http://redux.deviantart.com
>>>>> >> >>>>>>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> --
>>>>> >> >>>>> John Foliot
>>>>> >> >>>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>>> >> >>>>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>>>> >> >>>>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> --
>>>>> >> >>>> John Foliot
>>>>> >> >>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>>> >> >>>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>>>> >> >>>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>> >> >>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> --
>>>>> >> >> John Foliot
>>>>> >> >> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>>> >> >> Deque Systems Inc.
>>>>> >> >> john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > John Foliot
>>>>> > Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>>> > Deque Systems Inc.
>>>>> > john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John Foliot
>>>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>>>
>>>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Foliot
>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>> Deque Systems Inc.
>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2017 03:06:49 UTC