Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors

I've been teaching people with low vision transitioning to blindness for a
number of years. Usually, by the time they are at  400-500% (4x to 5x on
zoomtext), I'm saying something like this

"Ok, let's have that conversation about a dedicated screen reader again"

I had one student who was very attached to Zoom and hung on until 20x
(which allows about 5 characters wide on a 27" screen), but when I finally
convinced her to switch to a Screen Reader she said

"I can't believe I waited so long, this is sooooo much better."

I think for a user agent zoom we can't realistically be looking at more
than 300-400% ... and that will require significant testing and mockups as
a proof of concept...

The thinking in WCAG 2 was that people needing more than 200% generally
have assistive technology but I (cautiously) think we could increase that
to perhaps 400%.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:20 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:

> Laura, et al.
>
>
>
> I’m concerned with the wording from the GitHub link for the latest
> proposal,
>
>
>
> It starts out with the statement by allanj-uaaag
>
> Current: Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200
> percent in a way *that does not require the user to scroll horizontally*
> to read a line of text on a full-screen window.
>
>
>
> This is an inaccurate statement.
>
> The current 1.4.4 allows for scrolling if necessary in the Examples for
> Success:
>
> “A user uses a zoom function in his user agent to change the scale of the
> content. All the content scales uniformly, *and the user agent provides
> scroll bars, if necessary*.”
>
>
>
> I also think it is physically impossible to increase to 1100% without
> horizontal scrolling.
>
>
>
> Is their an actual font size that the 1100% value is trying to achieve?
>
>
>
> 1100% creates a totally different end resultant  font size  on a 10”
> tablet as it does on a 15” laptop or a 24” monitor. What the user gets with
> 1100% on a larger monitor would not be nearly what they get on a smaller
> monitor/screen size.
>
>
>
> Should we state that it needs to be 1100% for 15” monitors but something
> like 1800” for 10” screens and 2200% for 6” smart phones.
>
>
>
> Would we also need to make sure that touch target sizes for buttons and
> icons need to be scalable to some value at a similar percentage as well for
> low vision and users with dexterity and motor skill issues?
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan Smith, CSTE, CQA
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM
> *To: *Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Jonathan Avila
> <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> *Cc: *public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Low Vision
> Task Force <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
>
>
>
> Laura wrote:
>
> The latest LVTF proposal for an SC is 1100% based on Gordon Leege's
> studies.
>
> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5
>
>
>
> Thanks for the heads up, I don’t think that’s realistic so I’ve commented
> there.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>