RE: Addition to Reflow Understanding

Hi Wayne,

I’m guessing you are referencing this thread on github:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/883#issuecomment-385044021


Others can read the thread for wider context (I replied there); for the paragraph suggested I’m not sure what you want to achieve with the braille comparison?

Perhaps I’m missing something, but braille is enabled via screenreaders (at least for web content), so it isn’t a separate thing. Are you trying to draw a parallel between screenreaders/braille and magnifiers/reflow? If so, I don’t get it.

As I keep saying: I am not objecting to the need, but there needs to be a feasible solution.

E.g. where Jonathan wrote: “sometimes there are powers that object to criteria that are well documented.”

The criteria can be documented up the wazoo (sorry, it’s Friday night and I’m writing this quite late), but if there isn’t a reasonable & feasible  solution it doesn’t help with progress in WCAG.

We could add something that makes the requirement beyond the SC clear, but the reference to braille makes it less clear for me, and I’m not sure what it is trying to say.

Cheers,

-Alastair

Previously suggested paragraph:
> "For people with low vision, enlarged text with reflow, serves the same function that braille serves for non-visual readers. While both groups benefit from audio reading formats, they both need a self-paced reading medium for understanding difficult content. Enlargement enables perception of characters. Reflow makes reading a tractable operation."