Re: Example 3 does not fit (because here, the text container does resize)

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:51 AM, <noreply@w3.org> wrote:

>
> Name: Detlev Fischer
> Email: fischer@dias.de
> Affiliation: DIAS GmbH
> Document: TD
> Item Number: G179
> Part of Item: Examples
> Comment Type: general comment
> Summary of Issue: Example 3 does not fit (because here, the text container
> does resize)
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> Example 3 does not fit the technique which relates to fixed-size
> containers, because here, the text container *does* resize (size defined in
> em).
> Actually, I think what is *really* meant would have to be called "G179:
> Ensuring that there is no loss of content or functionality when the text
> resizes and text containers do not <del>resize</del> <ins>change width</ins>
> - at least this is what examples 1 and 2 refer to.
>
> Proposed Change:
> * Delete example 3
> * Change name of technique to make it clear that the topic is *fixed width*
> containers that expand at the bottom through reflow of text when the text
> size is increased to 200%
>
>
> ================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
Example 3 does not fit the title of the technique as you suggested, since
the width of the container in this example is defined in em units. C28,
specifying the size of text containers using em units, provides relevant
examples for using em units.
Furthermore, the title of the technique is not appropriate for example 2,
since in that example the container does resize its height.

We will remove example 3 and change the title of technique to "G179:
Ensuring that there is no loss of content or functionality when the text
resizes and text containers do not change their width"


Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group