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

Laura provided the following link to their discussion about 1100% on LVTF

https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5

I personally sense that even 400% would be difficult to require... but 300%
might be reasonable...


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 10:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> you are right
>
> we need to thoroughly test something that high - and be sure that
>
>
> a) it is doable on most pages (all pages we scope it for)
> -  redoing it  with that much enlargement is a lot.
>
> b) people need that much will want it without the additional benefits of a
> screen enlarger
>
>
>    - 400% without all the tracking etc (that comes with a screen
>       enlarger) might be tricky.
>       - and how do they need 400% on the web content but not the browser
>       itself or anything else on the desktop?    how do they use those?
>
>
>
>
> *gregg*
>
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:42 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>