Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content

yep

I think we are all in agreement.
 - horizontal scrolling is a problem for many with many causes (not just font enlargement )
 - sometimes - for some types of content - the cure would be worse than the horizontal scrolling 
 - so we want to require it some place but not all places
 - we can think of examples — but we havent yet found a ‘rule’ for what it would apply to or not that is not subjective

no? 

gregg

> On Jul 4, 2016, at 4:55 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
> 
>  
>   <>
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>] 
> Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 4:35 PM
> 
> 1) linearizing a table must be done in both directions since sometimes you want to compare columns and sometimes rows.
>  
> if you want to do both — then only the table works
>  
> I worry that tables are tables for a reason —  (and not linear lists) 
>  
> I would suggest that if you forces tables to linearize that were too wide for the page — you would see a user revolt amongst most users.  
> [Jason] We’re in agreement so far. The problem is that I think an “essential exception” is too strict, or at least insufficiently defined to serve our purposes here. Table linearization (to return to the example) is required by some braille style guidelines, and used to be recommended on the Web as an accessibility strategy, so it seems at least debatable whether the tabular nature of the material is essential to its purpose.
>  
> And that still leaves Maps and all the other examples. 
> [Jason] Yes, though my proposal was designed to address those too, as was David’s.
>  
>  
> and we can’t use lists for exceptions
>  
>  
> We need to figure this out   (how to clearly define when it should or should not apply) without using any judgement.    
>  
> And we also cannot include the phrase “user can” in the SC since we don’t know who the user is…   (another trap we kept falling into and climbing out of in the WCAG 2.0 work.
> [Jason] I agree, although in this case we know that the user can perceive the visual presentation (even if it needs to be resized).
> The idea behind my proposal was that scrolling should be avoided unless the designs which do so are worse than imposing scrolling on the user. The question is how to characterize “worse”. More cognitive load (but that’s highly user and task-dependent)? The function or purpose can’t be achieved without a presentation that exceeds the size of the viewport after text is resized?
> 
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your compliance.
>