- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:18:35 -0500
- To: Erich Manser <emanser@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Hi Erich and all, Last February Jon put forward GitHub issue 623: "Do issues with Windows high contrast mode fall under WCAG 2.1?: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/623 If that issue doesn't cover your concerns, maybe raise another issue? https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/new Kindest Regards, Laura On 3/19/19, Erich Manser <emanser@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hello LVTF, > Hope everyone's been well. > > Some of my IBM colleagues have raised some considerations/concerns having > to do with Windows High Contrast mode. > > How best to bring forward at the present time? > > Thanks for any info! > > Erich Manser > > IBM > > Accessibility > > Design > > Littleton, > > MA / tel: > > 978-696-1810 > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't need eyesight to have vision. > > > > From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> > To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> > Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> > Date: 03/19/2019 06:28 AM > Subject: Re: Warning: The Understanding Reflow gonly 200% text. > > > > Hi Wayne, > > This isn’t new, as I said we’ve been through this a couple of times: > https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/391#issuecomment-401412278 > > You have previously commented that sites generally don’t reduce the > text-size at higher zoom levels because it would be hard for everyone > trying to read it on a small screen – which is true. > > >> Did we mean that authors could make text small as the page was zoomed? > The following language in Understand Reflow implies this. > > Not “small”, but not necessarily 400%. > > Enforcing a flat percentage increase for text of varying sizes is not > helpful. Large text increased to 400% will create a lot more scrolling, and > we would be incentivising designers to use smaller headings & text to start > with. > > (Seeing that your style sheets make headings the same size as regular text > helped my understanding here.) > > We had good information from the LVTF, and I think Jon will agree the SC > wasn’t adjusted because we didn’t believe him or didn’t understand the > requirement. > > It was adjusted because there has to be a reasonable balance between the > user-requirement and the demand on authors. Plus the un-intended > consequence of increasing large text to 400%. > > We currently have two related requirements: > 1. Text size must be able to reach 200% of the default. > 2. Reflow must work down to 320px. > > When you put those together, the easiest thing is to allow text to increase > x4. That’s the default. You have to put work in to reduce text size as > smaller screen sizes. > > We’ve done dozens of 2.1 audits since last summer, and I don’t think we’ve > had an instance where a site failed 1.4.4 whilst passing 1.4.10. In the > vast majority of cases text would be 400%, except where it started very > large. > > To plug what *might* be a gap I think a min-text-size approach would be > best, but we’d need evidence to show there is an issue given the current > requirements. > > I.e. Are there sites which currently pass 1.4.4 + 1.4.10 and reduce the > text size at higher zoom levels to the 200-300% level? > > In the code the site would have to set text at 16px and then reduce it to > 9-12px at larger zoom levels. > > Cheers, > > -Alastair > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 13:18:58 UTC