W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Are Small Text buttons level 2 compliant

From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:25:04 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000926152315.00d4fef0@pop3.concentric.net>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WAI ER group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I would add to Charles's definition of acceptable technological 
alternative, e.g. a screen magnifier program, that it not cause any other 
problems.  For example, the need for horizontal scrolling that a pure 
magnifier will require.

Len

At 01:33 PM 9/26/00 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>This is a topic in WCAG at least (but there is a requirement on UAAG implied,
>I think).
>
>I think the thrust of what you are saying is true - that if ther is a readily
>achieveable solution, then it isn't a very big problem. The definition of
>readily achievable, and solution, is of course where the difficulty lies in
>trying to use this as an answer.
>
>As a first pass, I would suggest that "freely available for MacOS, Unix/Linux
>and Windows operating systems, and not having compatibility problems with
>Assistive technologies" is as good as anywhere as a departure point on the
>search for a usable definition.
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>
>   At 12:08 PM -0400 9/26/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>   >I don't think it satisfies the user requirements for people with
>   >some degree of low vision, especially if the font size is relatively
>   >small.
>
>   Devil's advocate position here:
>
>   Doesn't the widespread availability of screen magnifiers (such as the
>   one built into Windows 2000), plus the availability of screenreaders to
>   read out the textual content, plus the ability to turn off images and
>   view the text directly (thus scaling with user font changes), reduce
>   the need for avoiding textual images?
>
>   If we don't have to worry about providing audio streams -- because
>   screenreaders exist -- then shouldn't the existence of the various
>   technologies listed above likewise ease our fears regarding text
>   buttons?
>
>   We are willing to say "oh, there's technology to deal with -that-"
>   for a number of items, so where is the line drawn?  (If screenreaders
>   did not exist, the obligation would be on the web designer to
>   provide an aural output stream for everything, no?)
>
>   --Kynn
>
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>September - November 2000:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 
>France

--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2000 15:36:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT