W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Success criteria 1.4.4

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:15:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SBbWL1df_o8FxQbe+GVs1jWBC-dyP4f08miwDgHmRCrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
This has a multi part answer:

The population of visual readers with low vision is about the same
size as the population of people who are blind.  It is big.

Wide screen has many problems.  First is cost.  I have one, but the
unemployment rate among people with disabilities is about 70%.  So,
most can't afford one.  Second, they are hard to carry around.
Finally, the dimensions are impractical.

To have low vision and be classified as disabled you have to have
uncorrectable visual acuity of about 20/70 to 20/180.  This means the
minimum effective enlargement starts at about 300% to 400%.  So, a 15
inch screen will become 45  to 60 inches, many bucks and a lot of neck
strain looking up.  What you do not realize is that a person with low
vision will have to sit as close to their 45 inch screen as you sit to
a 15 inch screen.

Finally, almost nothing really works at 600x800.  Fixed size dialog
boxes just blow off the screen.

So, word wrapping text only zoom is a necessary evil.

Wayne


On 8/22/11, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> [Felix wrote]
>> 2-Just how often do you think appearance of a horizontal scrollbar
> actually occurs since widescreen displays all but eliminated 4:3 displays
> from the marketplace years ago?
>
> This is a point that I would like to discuss.  I've talked to many users
> with low vision and many of us do not like the wide screen monitors.  Even
> those with wide screen monitors sometimes keep the resolution at the
> standard 4:3 ratio in order to keep the text larger e.g. 1024x768 and yes
> 800x600, etc.    I'm not sure who made the decision for the entire world
> that wide screen was the solution for everyone but my vote wasn't counted.
> Sure it may be good for movies and good for comparing documents side by
> side but for low vision users it may not always be helpful.
>
> It's important to understand how many users with low vision see.  Users
> tend to look more closely at objects to gain greater detail.  This limits
> the amount field as the person is closer to the object and thus the field
> is more narrow and the viewing angle greater toward the edges.  In many
> cases users with low vision may not see with binocular vision.  In these
> cases the user is reading with one eye as the eyes often do not work
> correctly together in cases where the eyes do work together the point of
> convergence is not the same and may be to the left and right instead of
> centered -- thus making the field of best vision less wide.
>
> If you examine speed reading programs like rapidReader you will notice
> that rapid rates of reading are accomplished by keeping the text in the
> same location and not making the user move their eyes or head from side to
> side to read the text.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 20:15:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 August 2011 20:15:33 GMT