W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Carla De Winter <carla@accesscapable.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:09:01 +0100
To: 'Ramón Corominas' <listas@ramoncorominas.com>, "'Jonathan Avila'" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I tend to agree on that one, 1.4.8 was not the right one. Overlooked, we
merged 1.4.4 and 1.4.8#5 during our previous exercise for practical reasons.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Ramón Corominas [mailto:listas@ramoncorominas.com] 
Verzonden: maandag 20 februari 2012 22:56
Aan: Jonathan Avila
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

I completely agree, it is a failure of 1.4.4 since the content cannot be 
resized to 200% without losing information.

And, of course, I think that disabling CSS is not an acceptable 
"solution", since in that case I'd have to accept any website as 
compliant with SC 1.4.4. I cannot figure out of any site that, without 
styles, cannot be resized to 200% without losing content.


Jonathan wrote:

> I believe this would violate 1.4.4 “Except for captions and images of 
> text, text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent 
> without loss of content or functionality. (Level AA)” since I loss 
> functionality of the page.
> As the developer has expressly stated scrolling=”no” in the code I’d say 
> this issue is a site fault and not a problem with browsers.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 22:09:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:43 UTC