Re: Interaction of "zoom content" and vertical writing modes

I think that works, we are clarifying the term “equivalent width” in the note, so for a page which is switched 90 degrees, width becomes height…


From: John Foliot

@David M.

It could be an editorial (clarification) note in the actual SC. (examples today include SC 1.3.3, SC 1.4.1 & 1.4.2, SC 1.4.5, SC 1.4.7, ...and more)

???

JF

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:30 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
Notes can't be used to create new requirements. If the vertical issue is not in the SC, it can't be freshly introduced in a note as an additional requirement.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt 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>

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> Since there seems to be agreement this is primarily future proofing, can we cover it with a note?

That would be my preference, and it’s already there!

“320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280 CSS pixels wide at 400% zoom. For web pages which are designed to scroll horizontally, the 320px should be taken as the height rather than width.”
Cheers,

-Alastair





--
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