W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > June 2007

RE: ]RE: Relative Units for Font Size Scaling W3C requirement replaced by zoom techniques in new Browsers?

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:54:09 -0500
To: 'Charles McCathieNevile' <chaals@opera.com>, 'Loretta Guarino Reid' <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "'Schnabel, Stefan'" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
Cc: "'Cooperman, Michael J'" <michael.j.cooperman@sap.com>, 'Aaron M Leventhal' <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-id: <004101c7a9e5$414feb30$0f6fa8c0@NC84301>

We need to be careful here.

ZOOM is being used in two different ways. To avoid this in WCAG we

1) use ZOOM to refer ONLY to a full image zoom.  It is like magnifying the
page (though sometimes font smoothing occurs)

2) use FONT SCALING or SIZING with WRAP to refer to changing the font size
in a way that causes relayout of the page - or staying within horizontal
width. (so there is no horizontal scrolling)

With ZOOM there should never be a layout integrity problem if a true ZOOM
since the layout is just magnified.

With RESIZING with WRAP  ( fluid layout etc)  then you do.


PS  I am not saying that everyone needs to use these definitions, just that
you need to remember them in interpreting the WCAG guidelines.



Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org
> [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:30 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; Schnabel, Stefan
> Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; Cooperman, Michael J; Aaron M
> Leventhal; wai-xtech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ]RE: Relative Units for Font Size Scaling W3C
> requirement replaced by zoom techniques in new Browsers?
>
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:43:29 +0200, Loretta Guarino Reid
> <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 5/23/07, Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com> wrote:
>
> >> Advantage for Zoom is that it does enlarge images
> proportionally also.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> Questions now:
> >>
> >> a) is Greggs Level AA rating when using zoom correct? Is
> that sufficient
> >> success criteria for W3C regarding font scaling?
> >
> > Whether such browser functionality can be used to satisfy this AA
> > success criterion depends upon which browsers are used by the target
> > audience. If only IE7 supports zoom and your users are not
> using IE7,
> > you need to use other techniques such as scalable fonts.
>
> In fact IE7 is one of the last browsers to do zoom - only
> about a decade
> after it started appearing in browsers. On the other hand, I
> only know of
> a couple of mobile browsers that provide zoom, and I suspect
> it is still
> an issue for now.
>
> >> b) will the sections that reccommend to use em units be
> modified to
> >> reflect new zooming techniques in browsers?
> >
> > No,  using scalable fonts is still a sufficient technique to satisfy
> > this success criterion.
> >
> >> b) is horizontal scrolling when using zoom a no-go for
> accessibility or
> >> is it more a usability issue and a consequecne of AA
> classification?
> >
> > It is an accessibility issue, which is why it is included in WCAG.
> > However, there is some content for which it will not be possible to
> > scale the content in a way that doesn't require horizontal scaling
> > (e.g. large complex data tables).
>
> Well, using a table transformation tool it is possible to
> avoid it, but
> people don't generally do that :( On the other hand using
> something like
> fit-to-width in combination with zoom wil deal with some of
> the issue - by
> breaking anything that you used to try and force your site to
> maintain a
> particular layout. Adaptive layout is still an important
> technique for
> users, so building a layout that can handle being adapted is
> a pretty good
> idea.
>
> cheers
>
> chaals
>
> --
>    Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
>    hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
> chaals@opera.com  Catch up: Speed Dial  http://opera.com
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 15:54:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2007 14:26:24 GMT