Re: Addition to Reflow Understanding

Laura, I like that too. +1. WCAG 2.0 go the idea that enlargement was
necessary to ensure perception, but it missed the major disruption caused
by horizontal scrolling. Laur's paragraph makes that clear without having
to say the earlier versions were wrong.

Wayne

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:41 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Laura, I like it. Let's see what Wayne thinks...
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 4:07 PM Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wayne,
>>
>> Like Alastair, I don't understand the comparison to Braille.
>>
>> However, I do understand that for people with low vision, enlarged
>> text with reflow is critical. Maybe that point isn't coming across in
>> the Understanding doc [1].
>>
>> I wonder if it would help to add a bit to first paragraph (after the
>> first sentence) such as:
>>
>> "For people with low vision, enlarged text with reflow enables
>> reading. It is critical. Enlargement enables perception of characters.
>> Reflow enables tracking. Tracking is following along lines of text,
>> including getting from the end of one line to the beginning of the
>> next line."
>>
>> The draft Reflow persona quote [2] for the understanding doc is:
>>
>> "It's nearly impossible to read text if I have to scroll to read each
>> line. It's disorienting, and hard to understand what I'm reading. I
>> lose my place scrolling back and forth. Incredibly frustrating! I
>> usually just give up and quit reading "
>>
>> Thoughts? Ideas for improvement?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> [1] https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/reflow/understanding/21/reflow.html
>> [2]
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Persona_Quotes_for_2.1_Understanding_Documents#Quotes
>>
>> On 4/27/18, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>> > 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."
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>