- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 06:20:00 -0700
- To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marco Bertoni <m.bertoni@webprofession.com> Date: May 28, 2007 3:33 AM Subject: Re[2]: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> Cc: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> Hello Gregg and Loretta, a more generic solution may be something like this: Level AA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology and without loss of content or functionality. Level AAA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology and without loss of content or functionality and in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally. If we impose to make text scalable *without loss of content or functionality* only at one specific increment value (200 percent) the danger is that people that need more than a 200 percent increment may notice loss of content or functionality. On the contrary, avoiding to impose explicit values (like 200 percent) we force the designer to make text scalable *without loss of content or functionality* at every scale increment (200 percent, 300 percent... or IE 6 "Larger", IE 6 "Largest" etc.). Also this generic solution have his own problems: it's hard for a designer to guarantee virtually infinite text increments (or decrements) without loss of content or functionality. But this depends on the designer professionalism. Moreover, the common sense will probably tell a good designer that if there is a bit of loss of content or functionality at a certain really big text increment (or decrement) level, this is not a major accessibility issue. But, obviously, this is all debatable. IMHO, only one thing is certain: it is wrong to impose a specific increment value without making full usability tests with partially sighted users. Especially because low vision is complex (e.g. central field loss, multiple field loss, tunnel vision, contrast loss and glare problems etc.) so partially sighted users may have quite different levels of sight and, accordingly, quite different requirements. At last, I think that the lesser of two evils is to avoid to mention specific values. Have a nice day, Marco Sunday, May 27, 2007, 5:09:37 AM, you wrote: > Hi Marco, > Thank you for your comment. Can you tell us more about what you meant by >> However, I think that to impose >> explicit values (like 200 percent and so on) may be >> dangerous. How about a more generic solution? > Thanks > Gregg > -- ------------------------------ > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. -- Best regards, Marco Bertoni International Webmasters Association / The HTML Writers Guild http://www.iwanet.org
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 13:20:40 UTC