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

David,

I’m glad that you have some real-world experiences to draw from.

I agree with your statement: “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... “

Unfortunately, there are limits to what we can suggest for any of our guidelines.

Alan Smith, CSTE, CQA

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:44 AM
To: ALAN SMITH
Cc: Alastair Campbell; Laura Carlson; Jonathan Avila; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; WCAG; Low Vision Task Force
Subject: 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
 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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

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
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM
To: Laura Carlson; Jonathan Avila
Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; WCAG; Low Vision Task Force
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