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

Re: Success criteria 1.4.4

From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:23:22 -0400
Message-ID: <4E53556A.2080109@earthlink.net>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 2011/08/22 13:15 (GMT-0700) Wayne Dick composed:

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

How are you defining "low vision"? To me, anyone who for distances in the 
vicinity most sit from a computer display has an unmet need for correction or 
correction that is no longer correct has low vision. Using my definition, 
probably half the planet has low vision. IOW, more than big - gigantic!

> 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.

In the current market, the scarcity of conventional aspect displays keeps 
their prices up in the same vicinity or higher than the prices of amply 
available widescreens.

> Second, they are hard to carry around.

Are you thinking of laptops? Few carry their displays around. Most once 
bought are rarely moved, much less carried.

> Finally, the dimensions are impractical.

If you're referring to the wider field of view, I agree that those with low 
vision tend to have a narrower than average field of view and so can't as 
easily, or at all, make decent use of the extra width as others.

> 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.

Not to belittle your point, as I fully understand the need for exponential 
enlargement as vision decreases. Size is a function of area, not length or 
width standing alone, which is what those using CSS seem accustomed to 
thinking. One need only raise the size of a 16px font to about 22.4px to get 
a doubling of size. A doubling of a CSS "size" produces an nominal _size_ 
increase of 400%.

A typical 15" laptop screen has an area of about 620 square cm. 400% of that 
is 2480, which is about the area of a 30" HDTV. A 46" HDTV as an area of 
about 5800, 935% of the 15" laptop. A 60" HDTV is about 9900, about 1600% 
bigger than the 15" laptop. http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/displays.html

> 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.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 07:24:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 August 2011 07:24:57 GMT