- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:10:42 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13514 --- Comment #7 from Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> 2012-01-16 22:10:41 UTC --- Scalable images would address the problem of larger images, but it fails to address other use cases. Ideally we would allow the author to specify multiple images that could be selected based on conditions such as desired size, color depth, and whether the display supports colors vs. grayscale. For example: (a) If only a single vector image is provided, it will generally work well at larger sizes but often fails at sizes smaller than it was designed for, as details become invisible, or the important details become lost as their distinction from background is reduced. People may want small icons when using small displays, or displaying content in a small viewport in order to reserve screen real estate for assistive technology, or when cognitive disabilities require them to keep a lot of information on the screen at one time rather than scrolling or overlapping windows. (b) An image designed for millions of colors may likewise prove unusable on a monochrome or grayscale display, when color depth is reduced to improve performance when using remote access tools over relatively slow connections, or or when the user has reduced the color depth to compensate for a visual impairment. I admit these are not the most important problems in the world, but when defining a new specification it makes little sense to ignore these issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 22:11:41 UTC