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

Hi Allan,

Thanks for your email. I've linked to it on the Git Hub issue.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 7/6/16, 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
> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM
> To: Laura Carlson; Jonathan Avila
> Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; WCAG; Low Vision Task Force
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 13:33:21 UTC